System and sensor array

ABSTRACT

The present disclosure provides a system comprising a communication interface and computer for assigning a label to the biomolecule fingerprint, wherein the label corresponds to a biological state. The present disclosure also provides a sensor arrays for detecting biomolecules and methods of use. In some embodiments, the sensor arrays are capable of determining a disease state in a subject.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a division of U.S. application Ser. No. 17/099,331filed Nov. 16, 2020; which is a continuation-in-part of U.S. applicationSer. No. 15/880,627 filed Jan. 26, 2018 now patented as U.S. Pat. No.10,866,242; which is a continuation of PCT Application PCT/US2017/067013filed on Dec. 18, 2017 which claims priority to U.S. ProvisionalApplication 62/435,409 filed Dec. 16, 2016, the contents of which areincorporated by reference in its entirety.

STATEMENT REGARDING FEDERALLY SPONSORED RESEARCH N/A INCORPORATION BYREFERENCE

All publications, patents, and patent applications mentioned in thisspecification are herein incorporated by reference to the same extent asif each individual publication, patent, or patent application wasspecifically and individually indicated to be incorporated by reference.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

The field of the invention is related to sensor arrays for the detectionand diagnosis of different disease states, particularly, the inventionrelates to the ability to diagnose or prognose diseases or disorders.

The earlier a disease is diagnosed, the more likely that the disease canbe cured or successfully managed leading to a better prognosis for thepatient. When you treat a disease early, you may be able to prevent ordelay problems from the disease and may improve the outcomes for thepatient, including extending the patient's life and/or quality of life.

Early diagnosis of cancer is crucial, as many types of cancers can besuccessfully treated in their early stages. For example, five-yearsurvival after early diagnosis and treatment of breast, ovarian, andlung cancers is 90%, 90%, and 70%, respectively, compared to 15%, 5%,and 10% for patients diagnosed at the most advanced stage of disease.Once cancer cells leave their tissue of origin, successful treatmentusing available established therapeutics becomes very unlikely. Althoughrecognizing the warning signs of cancers and taking prompt action maylead to early diagnosis, the majority of cancers (e.g., lung) showsymptoms only after cancer cells have already invaded the surroundingtissues and metastasized throughout the body. For example, more than 60%of patients with breast, lung, colon, and ovarian cancer have concealedor even metastatic colonies by the time their cancers are detected.Therefore, there is an urgent need for development of an effectiveapproach for early detection of cancer. Such an approach should have thesensitivity to identify a cancer at various stages and the specificityto give a negative result when the person being tested is free of thecancer. There have been extensive efforts to develop methods for earlydetection of cancers; although huge numbers of risk factors andbiomarkers have been introduced, a broadly relevant platform for earlydetection of a wide range of cancers remains elusive.

As various types of cancers can change the composition of bloodplasma—even in their early stages—one promising approach for earlydetection is molecular blood analysis for biomarkers. Although thisstrategy has already worked for a few cancers (like PSA for prostatecancer), there are not yet specific biomarkers for early detection ofthe majority of cancers. For such cancers (e.g., lung), none of thedefined candidate circulating biomarkers has been clinically validated,and very few have reached late-stage clinical development. Therefore,there is an urgent need for novel approaches to improve our ability todetect cancer at very early stages.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention provides a sensitive versatile sensor array fordetection of a wide range of diseases and disorders and determination ofdisease states in a subject. The uniqueness of the present invention isthe combination of this recognition of a biomolecular fingerprint from asample from a subject and the ability to determine a disease state forthat subject on a continuum of health.

In some aspect, the invention provides a sensor array comprising aplurality of sensor elements, wherein the plurality of sensor elementsdiffer from each other in at least one physiocochemical property and theplurality of sensor elements comprises at least two sensor elements. Insome aspects, each sensor element is able to bind a plurality ofbiomolecules in a sample to produce a biomolecule corona signature,wherein each sensor element has a distinct biomolecule corona signaturefrom the other. In some aspects, the sensor element is a nanoscalesensor element.

In some aspects, the plurality of sensor elements produces a pluralityof biomolecule corona signatures when contacted by the sample, whereinthe combination of the plurality of biomolecule corona signaturesproduces a biomolecule fingerprint for the sample.

In some aspects, the sensor elements are linked to the substrate.

In some aspects, the sensor elements are discrete elements (regions) ona substrate, plate or chip having topological and functional differenceswhere each distinct element (region) produces a distinct biomoleculecorona signature. Together, the substrate, chip or array itself formsthe sensor array and provide the biomolecule fingerprint for the sample.

In some aspects, the invention provides methods of detecting a diseasestate in a subject comprising: obtaining a sample from the subject;contacting the sample with a sensor array, wherein the sensor arraycomprises a plurality of sensor elements, wherein the plurality ofsensor elements differ from each other in at least one physiocochemicalproperty and the plurality of sensor elements comprises at least twosensor elements, and determining a biomolecule fingerprint associatedwith the sample, wherein the biomolecule fingerprint may differentiatethe disease state of the subject. In some aspects, the method furthercomprises comparing the biomolecule fingerprint of the sample to a panelof biomolecule fingerprints associated with a plurality of diseasestates to determine which disease state is associated with the sample.

In another aspect, the invention provides a method of determining abiomolecule fingerprint associated with at least disease state or atleast one disease or a disorder, the method comprising the steps of: (a)obtaining a samples from at least two subjects diagnosed with thedisease state or the at least one disease or disorder; (b) contactingeach sample with a sensor array described herein, and (c) determining abiomolecule fingerprint for the sensor array that is associated with thedisease state or at least one disease or disorder. In some aspects, step(c) further comprises detecting the composition of the biomoleculecorona of each sensor element, wherein the combination of thecomposition of each biomolecule corona between the different sensorelements produce the biomolecule fingerprint associated with the sample.In other aspects, step (c) comprises dissociating the biomolecule coronafrom each sensor element and assaying the plurality of biomolecules ofeach biomolecule corona, wherein the combination of biomolecules assayedproduced the biomolecule fingerprint.

In yet another aspect, the invention provides a method of diagnosing orprognosing a disease or disorder in a subject, comprising obtaining asample from a subject; contacting the sample with a sensor arraydescribed herein to produce a biomolecule fingerprint, comparing thebiomolecule fingerprint to a panel of biomolecule fingerprintsassociated with a plurality of diseases or disorders; and diagnosing orprognosing the disease or disorder.

In yet another aspect, the invention provides a method of identifying apattern of biomarkers associated with a disease or disorder, the methodcomprising: (a) obtaining a samples from at least two subjects diagnosedwith the disease or disorder and at least two control subjects; (b)contacting each sample with a sensor array to produce a plurality ofbiomolecule corona for each subject, and (c) comparing the compositionof the plurality of biomolecule corona of the subjects with the diseaseor disorder to the composition of the plurality of biomolecule corona ofthe control subjects to determine a pattern of biomarkers associatedwith the disease or disorder.

In some aspects, the disease or disorder is cancer, endocrine disorder,cardiovascular disease, inflammatory disease or a neurological disease.

In one aspect, the disease or disorder is cancer.

In another aspect, the disease or disorder is cardiovascular disease. Inone aspect, the cardiovascular disease is coronary artery disease (CAD).

In a further aspect, the disease or disorder is a neurological disorder.In one aspect, the neurological disorder is Alzheimer's disease.

In some aspects, the invention provides a kit for diagnosing orprognosing a disease or disorder, the kit comprising: a sensor arraycomprising a plurality of nanoscale sensor elements, wherein theplurality of sensor elements differ from each other in at least onephysiocochemical property and the plurality of sensor elements comprisesat least two sensor elements.

In other aspects, the invention provides kit for determining and/ordetecting at least one biomarker associated with a disease or disorder,comprising at least one sensor array comprising a plurality of sensorelements, wherein the plurality of sensor elements differ from eachother in at least one physiocochemical property and the plurality ofsensor elements comprises at least two sensor elements.

In yet another aspect, the invention provides a method of distinguishingstates of a complex biological sample of a subject using a plurality ofparticles having surfaces with different physicochemical properties,wherein the method comprises: exposing the complex biological sample tothe plurality of particles to permit binding of proteins of the complexbiological sample to the plurality of particles, wherein a pattern ofbinding of proteins amongst the plurality of particles differs based onthe physicochemical properties of the surfaces of the particles;defining a biomolecule fingerprint representative of proteins that bindto the plurality of particles; and associating the biomoleculefingerprint with a biological state of the subject.

In another aspect, the invention provides a sensor array comprising aplurality of particles having surfaces with different physicochemicalproperties, wherein proteins of a complex biological sample bind to theplurality of particles upon exposure of the complex biological sample tothe plurality of particles, wherein a pattern of binding of the proteinsamongst the plurality of particles depends on the physicochemicalproperty of a surface of the particle.

In yet a further aspect, the invention provides a sensor arraycomprising a plurality of liposomes, wherein the plurality of liposomesdiffer in at least one protein-binding property defined by a lipid-basedsurface of each liposome; wherein the lipid-based surface of eachliposome contacts a subset of proteins of a sample at a lipid-proteininterface, thereby binding the subset of proteins to produce a patternof protein binding; wherein the pattern of protein binding of a firstliposome is different than the pattern of protein binding of a secondliposome differing from the first liposome in said at least oneprotein-binding property.

In another aspect, the invention provides a method of identifying abiological state of a subject using a plurality of liposomes differingin at least one protein-binding property defined by a lipid-basedsurface of each liposome, wherein the method comprises: exposing thesample to the plurality of liposomes to permit binding of proteins ofthe sample to the plurality of liposomes, wherein a pattern of bindingof the proteins differs amongst liposomes with different protein-bindingproperties; separating the proteins from the liposomes; defining abiomolecule fingerprint of the proteins separated from the liposomes;and associating the biomolecule fingerprint with a state of the complexbiological sample of the subject.

The foregoing and other aspects and advantages of the invention willappear from the following description. In the description, reference ismade to the accompanying drawings which form a part hereof, and in whichthere is shown by way of illustration a preferred embodiment of theinvention. Such embodiment does not necessarily represent the full scopeof the invention, however, and reference is made therefore to the claimsand herein for interpreting the scope of the invention.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed incolor. Copies of this patent or patent application publication withcolor drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and paymentof the necessary fee.

FIG. 1. Scheme of one embodiment showing an example of study design ofthe protein corona pattern approach for cancer detection. Three types ofliposomes are incubated with plasma of healthy people and cancerpatients, and the protein corona pattern forming on each liposome ineach subject's plasma (healthy and different cancers) is characterizedby liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Theformation of protein coronas on the three liposomes results in theenrichment of an overlapping but distinct pool of selected plasmaproteins, and the enriched proteins are the bases for subsequentmultivariate analysis. Via classification approaches, the importantproteins in the corona patterns were identified and used to predictcancers using both blind plasmas and cohort samples to test the accuracyof the multi-nanoparticle protein corona nanosystem. 29 human subjects(25 cancerous patients, i.e., 5 patients per 5 cancer types; and 4healthy subjects) representing 261 distinct runs of LC-MS/MS (3liposomes, 29 subjects, 3 replicates) were used to train aclassification model. 16 human subjects (3 patients per 5 cancer types;and 1 healthy subject) of blind plasma and 144 distinct runs of LC-MS/MS(3 liposomes, 16 subjects, 3 replicates) were used for cancerprediction, i.e., to test the classification model. 15 human subjects (5patients per 3 cancer types) of cohort plasma representing 135 distinctruns of LC-MS/MS (3 liposomes, 15 subjects, 3 replicates) were used forvery early cancer prediction as well.

FIG. 2A. TEM images of liposomes with their size distribution profiles.

FIG. 2B. Physicochemical properties of different liposomes before andafter interactions with human plasma from patients with differentdiseases. DLS and Zeta-Potential data on various liposomes beforeinteractions with human plasma and corona complexes free from excessplasma, obtained following incubation with plasma from healthy andcancer patients (Pdi: Polydispersity index from cumulant fitting).

FIG. 2C. Classification of the identified corona proteins from liposomesaccording to their physiological functions in human plasma of healthyindividuals and of patients having different types of cancers (the datapresented reflect a calculation from five biological plasmas per groupand three technical replicates per plasma)

FIG. 3A. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions including acute phase, inhuman plasma of healthy subjects and patients having different types ofcancers.

FIG. 3B. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions, including coagulation inhuman plasma of healthy subjects and patients having different types ofcancers.

FIG. 3C. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions, including immunoglobulins inhuman plasma of healthy subjects and patients having different types ofcancers.

FIG. 3D. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions, including lipoproteins inhuman plasma of healthy subjects and patients having different types ofcancers.

FIG. 3E. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions, including tissue leakage inhuman plasma of healthy subjects and patients having different types ofcancers.

FIG. 3F. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions, including complementproteins in human plasma of healthy subjects and patients havingdifferent types of cancers.

FIG. 3G. Classification of identified coronas by sensor array elementsaccording to their physiological functions, including other plasmaproteins in human plasma of healthy subjects and patients havingdifferent types of cancers.

FIG. 4A. Predictor discovery and contribution from each individualpredictor to separation of each class by PLS discrimination analysis.Predictor exploration by weighted VIP was performed by adding the rankedvariables to the PLS-DA model one by one and calculating theclassification error for internal cross-validation (10-fold). Decreasingthe classification error led to the discovery of a minimal set of 69predictors with the highest possible importance for separating eachclass from the others. The contribution of each individual marker toseparation of each class based on the PLS discrimination analysis. VIPplot ranking markers of 69 selected variables for their contribution toseparation of each class from PLS discrimination analysis. VIP score >1indicates important protein leading to good prediction of classmembership, whereas variables with VIP scores <1 indicate unimportantproteins for each class.

FIG. 4B depicts the results for the 69 variables for glioblastoma.

FIG. 4C. Depicts the VIP values for the 69 variables for meningioma.

FIG. 4D. Depicts the VIP values for the 69 variables for lung cancer.

FIG. 4E. Depicts the VIP values for the 69 variables for myeloma.

FIG. 4F. Depicts the VIP Values for the 69 variables for pancreaticcancer.

FIG. 5A. PLS-DA plot showing the separation of different canceroussamples from each other and from controls. PLS score-plot obtained usingPLS-toolbox, projecting the objects into the subspace created by the1st, 2nd, and 3rd latent variables of the model.

FIG. 5B. PLS-DA plot showing the separation of different canceroussamples from each other and from controls. Objects displayed where the4th and 5th latent variables of the model are shown. As can be seen,meningioma and glioblastoma cases were not separated in three dimensionsappropriately, but they can be separated in the fourth and fifthdimensions of the PLS model.

FIG. 5C. Assignation map obtained by CPANN with all variables andselected variables. The assignation map obtained by training of a CPANNnetwork (8×8 neurons) using whole data set (1823 variables). The mappingquality is not good and there are conflicts of different types of cancerin term of mapping.

FIG. 5D. Assignation map attained by training of a CPANN network (8×8neurons) using 69 variables. High dimensional input vectors (samples)are mapped on a two-dimensional network of neurons, preservingsimilarity and topology. Colors indicate the similarity of a neuron to aspecific type of input vector (class type). This map also demonstratesthe importance of the predictor selection step and the effect ofdeletion of non-informative and irrelevant predictors on the modelquality.

FIG. 5E. Dendrogram depicting the 51 proteins identified as capable ofdistinguishing among the six groups of cancer.

FIG. 5F. The 51 proteins identified as capable of distinguishing amongthe six groups are presented in a ‘Heat Map’ generated with anunsupervised cluster algorithm (Agglomerative HCA with furthest neighborlinkage). Visual inspection of both the dendrogram (FIG. 5E) and heatmap (FIG. 5F) demonstrates cancer-specific protein corona signature andclear clustering of six groups of samples (five groups of canceroussamples plus normal samples) and also expected similarities among fivepatients from each group. The heat map also indicates substantialdifferences in the patterns of variables (markers) of different cancers(each column represents a patient, and each row represents a protein).Higher and lower protein levels are indicated in red and green,respectively.

FIG. 6A. PLS score-plot obtained by considering 69 important markers,projecting the cohort objects into the subspace created by the 1st and2nd latent variables of the model.

FIG. 6B. PLS-DA Model is generated using 8 variables projecting thecohort objects into the subspace created by the 1st and 2nd latentvariables of the model, with excellent statistics.

FIG. 6C. The assignation map obtained by training of a CPANN network(8×8 neurons) using 69 important markers.

FIG. 6D. The assignation map obtained by training of a CPANN network(8×8 neurons) using only 8 markers without any misclassifications.Sample numbers are indicated on each neuron.

FIG. 7A. Schematic representation of study outline. Informative variableselection and classification model building.

FIG. 7B. The protein name and ID of 69 selected variables are listed.Some of the proteins were present in the protein corona of more than oneliposome (DOPG, DOTAP and CHOL are denoted by fonts: Italic andunderline font, bold font, and Plain font, respectively).

FIG. 7C. The disease-specific biomarkers covered as significantvariables by the proposed models.

FIG. 8A. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot derived fromPLS-DA based on the top 69 ranked variables for control. ROC plot ofsensitivity (True Positive Rate, Y-axis) versus 1—specificity (FalsePositive Rate, X-axis) based on a PLS-DA built upon the 69 markers withthe highest contribution for six classes (control, glioblastoma,meningioma, myeloma, pancreas, lung).

FIG. 8B. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot derived fromPLS-DA based on the top 69 ranked variables for glioblastoma. ROC plotof sensitivity (True Positive Rate, Y-axis) versus 1—specificity (FalsePositive Rate, X-axis) based on a PLS-DA built upon the 69 markers withthe highest contribution for six classes (control, glioblastoma,meningioma, myeloma, pancreas, lung).

FIG. 8C. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot derived fromPLS-DA based on the top 69 ranked variables for meningioma. ROC plot ofsensitivity (True Positive Rate, Y-axis) versus 1—specificity (FalsePositive Rate, X-axis) based on a PLS-DA built upon the 69 markers withthe highest contribution for six classes (control, glioblastoma,meningioma, myeloma, pancreas, lung).

FIG. 8D. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot derived fromPLS-DA based on the top 69 ranked variables for myeloma. ROC plot ofsensitivity (True Positive Rate, Y-axis) versus 1—specificity (FalsePositive Rate, X-axis) based on a PLS-DA built upon the 69 markers withthe highest contribution for six classes (control, glioblastoma,meningioma, myeloma, pancreas, lung).

FIG. 8E. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot derived fromPLS-DA based on the top 69 ranked variables for pancreas. ROC plot ofsensitivity (True Positive Rate, Y-axis) versus 1—specificity (FalsePositive Rate, X-axis) based on a PLS-DA built upon the 69 markers withthe highest contribution for six classes (control, glioblastoma,meningioma, myeloma, pancreas, lung).

FIG. 8F. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plot derived fromPLS-DA based on the top 69 ranked variables for lung. ROC plot ofsensitivity (True Positive Rate, Y-axis) versus 1—specificity (FalsePositive Rate, X-axis) based on a PLS-DA built upon the 69 markers withthe highest contribution for six classes (control, glioblastoma,meningioma, myeloma, pancreas, lung).

FIG. 9A. Schematic representation of unfolding a three-way data matrixinto a two-way matrix.

FIG. 9B. Assignation map obtained by CPANN (14×14) trained using 90samples (replicates) with all 1823 variables. Sample numbers areindicated on each neuron. The neuron color (assigned label) is decidedbased on the similarity between the class label (a 6×1 binary vector)and the weight vector in the output layer of the corresponding neuron.Despite using all biomarkers, there are some distinct similaritiesbetween samples of the same cancer class. Replicated samples are alsomapped on adjacent or the same neurons

FIG. 9C. Classification error of CPANN map was calculated at differentmap size using 10-fold cross validation.

FIG. 9D. The CPANN network has 69 weight layers, which is equal to thenumber of variables used to train the model. The i^(th) weight layerreflects the effect of the i^(th) variable (biomarker) on the pattern ofthe assignation map.

FIG. 9E The correlation of the assignation map and 69 weight layers(weight maps) can be calculated and could help identify the biomarkersrelated to each cancer class. It can also be visually decided;similarity can be monitored by absolute value of Correlation Coefficientof two maps.

FIG. 9F. The correlation of the assignation map and 69 weight layers(weight maps) can be calculated and could help identify the biomarkersrelated to each cancer class. It can also be visually decided;similarity can be monitored by absolute value of Correlation Coefficientof two maps.

FIG. 10A. Protein importance for classification vs. percentage ofproteins adsorbed on protein corona nanosystem. Panels (a)-(c)illustrate the importance of the observed protein-liposome interactions(‘variables’) in predicting specific cancers. Proteins are grouped bytheir physiological functions. Panels (d)-(f) illustrate the percentageof proteins adsorbed on each liposome. The protein-liposome groups thatemerge as relevant to the prediction of a cancer are highly distinctacross cancers (panels (a)-(c)). Moreover, this distinction issubstantially more pronounced than the variance in the percentage ofproteins adsorbed on the liposomes across those cancers (panels(d)-(f)).

FIG. 10B. Venn diagram showing the number of unique proteins identifiedin the corona composition of each liposome and their combinations (thetable at right presents the same data numerically).

FIG. 10C. Variable importance for classification. Each row indicates theimportance of a specific protein. The three dots on each row correspondto the importance of the observed interaction with each of the threeliposomes. Horizontal lines straddling the dots indicate the 25th and75th percentiles of the importance across classifiers trained on 1000random draws of the training set from the data. These confidenceintervals indicate the ‘stability’ of the trained model in terms of theprotein-liposome interactions upon which it crucially relies, withrespect to random draws of data.

FIG. 11. Weighted averages of protein-liposome interactions classifycancers. Distribution of the absolute z-scores for each patient group,histogrammed across the 100 most abundant proteins (gray) and previouslyidentified biomarkers (white with black dots). The long black barcorresponds to the z-score for a linear combination of theprotein-liposome interactions. A large z-score for a specificprotein-liposome interaction indicates that the group ‘separates’ fromthe rest of the patients in that particular interaction. The figureconsequently indicates that whereas no individual protein-liposomeinteraction suffices to classify any of the cancers, their weightedcombinations induce a separation of between 2 and 2.5 standarddeviations.

FIG. 12. Multi-liposomes concentrate low-abundance and rare proteins.Protein corona contribution vs. known plasma concentration, plotted onlog-log scale. Each point represents a single protein and liposome, withcorona contribution for each disease and healthy individuals, and bothcorona contribution and plasma concentration are normalized with respectto albumin. Plasma concentrations vary over 10 orders of magnitude,while the liposome array detects these same proteins over 4-5 orders ofmagnitude. Corona contributions of proteins whose plasma concentrationis unknown/unreported are plotted in the red area to the right.

FIG. 13. Examples of the types of nanoscale sensor elements that can beused for some embodiments of the sensor arrays. Different types ofnanoparticles (e.g., organic, inorganic, and polymeric nanoparticles)with various physicochemical properties (e.g., different, surfaceproperties, sizes, and shapes) can be used as sensor elements. Sensorarray can be created by minimum two elements to an unlimited number ofelements.

FIG. 14. Example of one method of collection of corona coated particlesin in vitro, ex vivo, and in vivo conditions. The particles getincubated with biological fluids (e.g., plasma of patients withdifferent type of disease) and the corona coated particles get collectedand stored for analysis.

FIG. 15A. Examples of conjugation of nano-object materials (withdifferent physicochemical properties) to substrates (with differentphysicochemical properties) to make a protein corona sensor array chip(A) before interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasma ofvarious disease). The specific protein corona will form on the surfaceof nano-objects, with different physicochemical properties. Thesubstrates may also get coated by several types of proteins, which havenegligible effects on the detection efficacy of the chip.

FIG. 15B. Examples of conjugation of nano-object materials (withdifferent physicochemical properties) to substrates (with differentphysicochemical properties) to make a protein corona sensor array chipafter interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasma of variousdisease).

FIG. 16A. Examples of protein corona sensor array chip withnano-curvatures (produced by wide variety of available approaches likelithography and mold casting), with different physicochemicalproperties, before interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasmaof various disease). The specific protein corona will form on thesurface of nano-objects, with different physicochemical properties. Thesubstrates may also get coated by several types of proteins, which havenegligible effects on the detection efficacy of the chip.

FIG. 16B. Examples of protein corona sensor array chip withnano-curvatures (produced by wide variety of available approaches likelithography and mold casting), with different physicochemical propertiesafter interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasma of variousdisease). The specific protein corona will form on the surface ofnano-objects, with different physicochemical properties. The substratesmay also get coated by several types of proteins, which have negligibleeffects on the detection efficacy of the chip.

FIG. 17A. Examples of conjugation of nano-object materials (withdifferent physicochemical properties) to substrates (with differentphysicochemical properties) to make a protein corona sensor arraymicro/nano fluidic chip before and (b) after interactions with proteinsource (e.g., human plasma of various disease). The specific proteincorona will form on the surface of nano-objects, with differentphysicochemical properties. The substrates may also get coated byseveral types of proteins, which have negligible effects on thedetection efficacy of the chip.

FIG. 17B. Examples of conjugation of nano-object materials to substratesto make a protein corona sensor array micro/nano fluidic chip afterinteractions with protein source (e.g., human plasma of variousdisease). The specific protein corona will form on the surface ofnano-objects, with different physicochemical properties.

FIG. 18A. Examples of protein corona sensor array micro/nano fluidicchip with nano-curvatures (produced by wide variety of availableapproaches like lithography and mold casting), with differentphysicochemical properties, before interactions with protein source(e.g., human plasma of various disease).

FIG. 18B. Examples of protein corona sensor array micro/nano fluidicchip with nano-curvatures (produced by wide variety of availableapproaches like lithography and mold casting), with differentphysicochemical properties, after interactions with protein source(e.g., human plasma of various disease).

FIG. 19A. Examples of conjugation of random-ordered nano-objectmaterials (with different physicochemical properties) to substrates(with different physicochemical properties) to make a protein coronasensor array chip before interactions with protein source (e.g., humanplasma of various disease).

FIG. 19B. Examples of conjugation of random-ordered nano-objectmaterials (with different physicochemical properties) to substrates(with different physicochemical properties) to make a protein coronasensor array chip after interactions with protein source (e.g., humanplasma of various disease).

FIG. 20A. Examples of protein corona sensor array chip withrandom-ordered nano-curvatures (produced by wide variety of availableapproaches like lithography and mold casting), with differentphysicochemical properties, before interactions with protein source(e.g., human plasma of various disease).

FIG. 20B. Examples of protein corona sensor array chip withrandom-ordered nano-curvatures with different physicochemical propertiesafter interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasma of variousdisease).

FIG. 21A. Examples of conjugation of random-ordered nano-objectmaterials (with different physicochemical properties) to substrates(with different physicochemical properties) to make a protein coronasensor array micro/nano fluidic chip (A) before interactions withprotein source (e.g., human plasma of various disease).

FIG. 21B. Examples of conjugation of random-ordered nano-objectmaterials to substrates to make a protein corona sensor array micro/nanofluidic chip after interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasmaof various disease).

FIG. 22A. Examples of protein corona sensor array micro/nano fluidicchip with random-ordered nano-curvatures (produced by wide variety ofavailable approaches like lithography and mold casting), with differentphysicochemical properties, before interactions with protein source(e.g., human plasma of various disease).

FIG. 22B. Examples of protein corona sensor array micro/nano fluidicchip with random-ordered nano-curvatures with different physicochemicalproperties after interactions with protein source (e.g., human plasma ofvarious disease).

FIG. 23. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the amidation reaction betweenthe amino groups on silica substrate surface and carboxylic acid groupson nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 24. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the ring-opening reactionbetween the epoxy groups on silica substrate surface and amino groups onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 25. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the Michael Addition reactionbetween the maleimide groups on silica substrate surface and thiol oramino groups on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 26. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the urethane reaction betweenthe isocyanate groups on silica substrate surface and hydroxyl or aminogroups on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 27. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the oxidation reaction betweenthe thiol groups on silica substrate surface and the ones onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 28. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the “Click” chemistry betweenazide groups on silica substrate surface and alkyne groups onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 29. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the thiol exchange reactionbetween 2-pyridyldithiol groups on silica substrate surface and thiolgroups on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 30. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the coordination reactionbetween boronic acid groups on silica substrate surface and diol groupson nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 31. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the UV light-irradiatedaddition reaction between C═C bonds on silica substrate surface and C═Cbonds on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 32. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via Au-thiol bonds.

FIG. 33 Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the amidation reaction betweenthe carboxylic acid groups on gold substrate surface and the aminogroups on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 34. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via “Click” chemistry between theazide groups on gold substrate surface and the alkyne groups onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 35. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via urethane reaction between theNHS groups on gold substrate surface and the amino groups onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 36. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the silica substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the ring-opening reactionbetween the epoxy groups on gold substrate surface and amino groups onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 37. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the coordination reactionbetween boronic acid groups on silica substrate surface and diol groupson nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 38. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the UV light-irradiatedaddition reaction between C═C bonds on gold substrate surface and C═Cbonds on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 39. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the “Ligand-Receptor”interaction between biotin on gold substrate surface and avidin onnanoparticle surface.

FIG. 40. Example of conjugation of nanoparticles to the gold substratesurface (as representative substrate) via the “Host-Guest” interactionbetween a-cyclodextrin (a-CD) on gold substrate surface and adamantine(Ad) on nanoparticle surface.

FIG. 41. Dissociation of proteins from the surface of nanoparticles andtheir corona composition analysis. Analysis of the protein corona sensorarray data with supervised and unsupervised approaches to identify anddiscriminate diseases.

FIG. 42A. Example of sensor array with random order nanoscale sensorelements for fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 42B. Example of sensor array with random order nanoscale sensorelements for fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 42C. Example of sensor array with random order nanoscale sensorelements for fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 42D. Example of sensor array with random order nanoscale sensorelements for fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 43A. Example of sensor array with order nanoscale sensor elementsfor fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 43B. Example of sensor array with order nanoscale sensor elementsfor fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 43C. Example of sensor array with order nanoscale sensor elementsfor fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 43D. Example of sensor array with order nanoscale sensor elementsfor fluorescence or luminescence readout.

FIG. 44A. Characterization of bare polystyrene and silica nanoparticleswith different functionalization (none, amine modification (NH₂) andcarboxyl modification (COOH)), showing the three different polystyrenenanoparticles (non-functionalized, P—NH₂ and P—COOH) used, their sizes,DLS and zeta potential of the bare particles.

FIG. 44B. Characterization of bare polystyrene and silica nanoparticleswith different functionalization (none, amine modification (NH2) andcarboxyl modification (COOH)), showing the three different silicananoparticles (non-functionalized, S—NH2 and S—COOH) used, their sizes,DLS and zeta potential.

FIG. 44C. Characterization of bare polystyrene and silica nanoparticleswith different functionalization (none, amine modification (NH2) andcarboxyl modification (COOH)), showing TEM of bare polystyrenenanoparticle.

FIG. 44D. Characterization of bare polystyrene and silica nanoparticleswith different functionalization (none, amine modification (NH2) andcarboxyl modification (COOH)), showing TEM of bare silica nanoparticles.

FIG. 45A. Characterization of protein corona-coated polystyrene andsilica nanoparticles with different functionalization (none, aminemodification (NH2) and carboxyl modification (COOH)), showing the sizes,DLS and zeta potential of the protein-corona loaded polystyrenenanoparticles.

FIG. 45B. Characterization of protein corona-coated polystyrene andsilica nanoparticles with different functionalization (none, aminemodification (NH2) and carboxyl modification (COOH)), showing the sizes,DLS and zeta potential of the protein-corona loaded silicananoparticles.

FIG. 45C. Characterization of protein corona-coated polystyrene andsilica nanoparticles with different functionalization (none, aminemodification (NH2) and carboxyl modification (COOH)), showing TEM ofprotein-corona loaded polystyrene nanoparticles.

FIG. 45D. Characterization of protein corona-coated polystyrene andsilica nanoparticles with different functionalization (none, aminemodification (NH2) and carboxyl modification (COOH)), showing TEM ofprotein-corona loaded silica nanoparticles.

FIG. 46. A diagram of the type of cancer plasma samples screened withthe polystyrene and silica nanoparticles.

FIG. 47. Protein corona profiles of polystyrene and silica nanoparticles(100 nm) with plain, amine-modified and carboxyl-modified surfaces afterincubation with plasma of patients having different cancers, analyzed bySDS PAGE.

FIG. 48. Protein corona profiles of polystyrene and silica nanoparticles(100 nm) with plain, amine-modified and carboxyl-modified surfaces afterincubation with plasma of healthy individuals as analyzed by SDS-Page

FIG. 49. Plot depicting the separation of patients with cancer from thehealthy individuals using a sensor array of the present invention.

FIG. 50A. Characterization of polystyrene and silica nanoparticles usedfor CAD screening, showing profile of bare, CAD, NO CAD, and CONTROLtreated nanoparticles.

FIG. 50B. Characterization of polystyrene and silica nanoparticles usedfor CAD screening, showing zeta potential for the different groups ofnanoparticles.

FIG. 50C. Characterization of polystyrene and silica nanoparticles usedfor CAD screening, showing TEM of the different nanoparticle in the CADscreen.

FIG. 51A. Protein concentrations of different protein corona fromanalysis of the CAD, NO CAD, and no risk for CAD (CONTROL)nanoparticles, showing Bradford assay of protein concentrations of thedifferent protein coronas.

FIG. 51B. Protein concentrations of different protein corona fromanalysis of the CAD, NO CAD, and no risk for CAD (CONTROL)nanoparticles, showing personalized protein corona profiles have beenanalyzed and compared through 1D-SDS-PAGE.

FIG. 51C. Protein concentrations of different protein corona fromanalysis of the CAD, NO CAD, and no risk for CAD (CONTROL)nanoparticles, showing gel analysis by densitometry determineddifferences in the amount of protein in the CAD, NO CAD and CONTROL PCs.

FIG. 52. Bars depicting the differences in the percentage contributionof the top 20 abundant proteins in the PCs.

FIG. 53. Plot depicting the classification of the subject into CAD, NOCAD and CONTROL by analysis of the fingerprints produced by theprotein-coated corona nanoparticles.

FIG. 54A. Synthetic and biological identity of nanoparticles afterincubation in Alzheimer's disease plasma. Nanosight nanoparticlestracking analysis (size). Polystyrene nanoparticles before and aftercoating with AD protein coronas. Bare nanoparticles are 90-100 μm andhomogenous in size. AD PC-coated nanoparticles are bigger and lesshomogenous in size. Intensity profiles and scatter plot of eachmeasurements are reported. Values are average±SD (n=3).

FIG. 54B. Synthetic and biological identity of nanoparticles afterincubation in Alzheimer's disease plasma. Nanosight nanoparticlestracking analysis (size). Silica nanoparticles before and after coatingwith AD protein coronas. Bare nanoparticles are 90-100 μm and homogenousin size. AD PC-coated nanoparticles are bigger and less homogenous insize. Intensity profiles and scatter plot of each measurements arereported. Values are average±SD (n=3).

FIG. 55. TEM analysis. Nanoparticles before and after coating with ADprotein coronas have been analyzed by transmission electron microscopyto evaluate potential changes in morphology and size. P: polystyrene;PN: polystyrene-NH₂, PC: polystyrene-COOH; S: silica; SN: silica-NH₂;SC: silica-COOH. All the nanoparticles show a size increase followingincubation in plasma.

FIG. 56. SDS-PAGE gels and densitometric analysis of the bands. Loadingorder: P, P—NH₂, P—COOH, S, S—NH₂, S—COOH where P: polystyrene; PN:polystyrene-NH₂, PC: polystyrene-COOH; S: silica; SN: silica-NH₂; SC:silica-COOH. Personalized protein corona profiles have been analyzed andcompared through SDS-PAGE. Four representative gels of Alzheimer'sprotein corona and one healthy protein corona are showed. Intensity ofbands relative to plasma proteins adsorbed on nanoparticles was analyzedby Image) (y-axis: intensity, x-axis: molecular weight).

FIG. 57. Classification of healthy and AD disease. The white dots are ADand black dots are healthy samples.

FIG. 58. SDS-Page gel analysis of silica nanoparticle of differentdiameters using the same volume loaded (10 ul, left) or same amount (10ug, right).

FIG. 59. Scheme showing the conducted experiments to probe the existenceof nucleic acids in biomolecular corona.

FIG. 60. Agarose gel analysis of nucleic acid binding to three differentnanoparticles.

FIG. 61. Analysis of nucleic acid content in plasma.

FIG. 62. Analysis of nucleic acid amounts associated with biomoleculecorona of a nanoparticle when protein was dissociated from the corona byurea.

FIG. 63. Analysis of nucleic acid amounts associated with biomoleculecorona of a nanoparticle when corona proteins were not dissociated fromthe surface of the particles.

FIG. 64. Analysis of nucleic acid amounts associated with biomoleculecorona of a nanoparticle when nucleic acids first purified from plasmawith purification kit and then incubated with nanoparticles.

FIG. 65. Schematic diagram of a method of distinguishing states of acomplex biological sample.

FIG. 66. Schematic diagram of a computer system.

FIG. 67. Table 3. Correlation coefficient of CPANN weight map for eachvariable in the six classes.

FIG. 68. Table 9: Information of the patients in which their plasmaswere used in Example 6.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention has been described in terms of one or morepreferred embodiments, and it should be appreciated that manyequivalents, alternatives, variations, and modifications, aside fromthose expressly stated, are possible and within the scope of theinvention.

The present invention provides sensor arrays and methods of use for theprognosis, diagnosis and detection of a disease state in a subject. Thesensor array of the present invention differs from known sensor arraysthat involve individual sensors that detect specific biomolecules. Inthe present sensor array, the biomolecules do not have to be known, asthe system does not rely on the presence or absence of a specificbiomolecules or amounts of specific disease markers. This new sensorarray is able to detect changes in the compositions of the biomoleculecorona associated with the different sensor elements. This ability todetect relative changes or patterns (either the actual biomoleculesassociated with the different sensor elements or in the amounts and/orconformations of each biomolecule associated with each sensor element)allows for determining a unique biomolecule fingerprint for each array.This biomolecule fingerprint can stratify different health and diseasestates of subjects. In some embodiments, the biomolecular fingerprint isnot only able to differentiate between healthy subjects and subjects invarious different stages of a disease or disorder but also to determinea pre-disease state in a subject where the subject will develop thedisease or disorder at a later time. This is significantly different andnovel over systems in the art that measure or detect specific biomarkersassociated with a disease or disorder to provide a predisposition (e.g.a chance or likelihood) of developing the disease. The present sensorand methods is able to detect a disease before any signs or symptoms, inother words, can pre-diagnose the disease before any specific signs orsymptoms appear.

The uniqueness of the present invention is the combination of thisrecognition of a biomolecular fingerprint from a sample from a subjectand the ability to determine a disease state for that subject on acontinuum of health.

The present invention is based on work by the inventors that have shownthat the surface of sensor elements, e.g. nanoparticles, is rapidlycovered with a layer of different biomolecules, including proteins, toform a “biomolecule corona” when contacted with a biological sample Theytype, amount, and categories of the biomolecules that make up thesebiomolecule corona are strongly related to the physicochemicalproperties of the sensor elements themselves and the complexinteractions between the different biomolecules themselves and thesensor elements. These interactions lead to the production of a uniquebiomolecule corona signature for each sensor element. In other words,depending on which biomolecules interact with the sensor element notonly influences the makeup of the biomolecule corona but also can alterwhich other different biomolecules can also interact with that specificsensor element.

Different sensor elements each with their own biomolecule coronasignature can be contacted with a sample to produce a unique biomoleculefingerprint for that sample. This fingerprint can then be used todetermine a disease state of a subject. Embodiments of the inventionwill be discussed in more detail below.

The present invention provides sensor arrays comprising, consistingessentially of or consists of a plurality of sensor elements wherein theplurality of sensor elements differ from each other in at least onephysiocochemical property. In some embodiments, each sensor element isable to bind a plurality of biomolecules in a sample to produce abiomolecule corona signature. In some embodiments, each sensor elementshas a distinct biomolecule corona signature.

The plurality of sensor elements when contacted with a sample produces aplurality of biomolecule corona signatures which together form abiomolecule fingerprint. The “biomolecule fingerprint” is the combinedcomposition or pattern of biomolecules of at least two biomoleculecorona signatures for the plurality of sensor elements.

As used herein, the term “sensor element” refer to elements that areable to bind to a plurality of biomolecules when in contact with asample and encompasses the term “nanoscale sensor element”. In oneembodiment, the sensor element is an element from about 5 nanometer toabout 50000 nanometer in at least one direction. Suitable sensorelements include, for example, but not limited to a sensor element fromabout 5 nm to about 50,000 μm in at least one direction, including,about 5 μm to about 40000 nm, alternatively about 5 μm to about 30000μm, alternatively about 5 μm to about 20,000 μm, alternatively about 5μm to about 10,000 μm, alternatively about 5 nm to about 5000 μm,alternatively about 5 μm to about 1000 μm, alternatively about 5 μm toabout 500 μm, alternatively about 5 μm to 50 μm, alternatively about 10μm to 100 μm, alternatively about 20 μm to 200 μm, alternatively about30 μm to 300 μm, alternatively about 40 μm to 400 μm, alternativelyabout 50 μm to 500 μm, alternatively about 60 μm to 600 μm,alternatively about 70 μm to 700 μm, alternatively about 80 μm to 800μm, alternatively about 90 μm to 900 μm, alternatively about 100 μm to1000 μm, alternatively about 1000 μm to 10000 μm, alternatively about10000 μm to 50000 μm and any combination or amount inbetween (e.g. 5 nm,10 μm, 15 μm, 20 μm, 25 μm, 30 μm, 35 μm, 40 μm, 45 μm, 50 μm, 55 μm, 60μm, 65 μm, 70 μm, 80 μm, 90 μm, 100 μm, 125 μm, 150 μm, 175 μm, 200 μm,225 μm, 250 μm, 275 μm, 300 μm, 350 μm, 400 μm, 450 μm, 500 μm, 550 μm,600 μm, 650 μm, 700 μm, 750 μm, 800 μm, 850 μm, 900 μm, 1000 μm, 1200μm, 1300 μm, 1400 μm, 1500 μm, 1600 μm, 1700 μm, 1800 μm, 1900 nm, 2000μm, 2500 μm, 3000 μm, 3500 μm, 4000 μm, 4500 μm, 5000 μm, 5500 μm, 6000nm, 6500 μm, 7000 μm, 7500 μm, 8000 μm, 8500 μm, 9000 μm, 10000 μm,11000 μm, 12000 μm, 13000 μm, 14000 μm, 15000 μm, 16000 μm, 17000 μm,18000 μm, 19000 μm, 20000 μm, 25000 μm, 30000 μm, 35000 μm, 40000 μm,45000 μm, 50000 μm and any number inbetween). A nanoscale sensor elementrefers to a sensor element that is less than 1 micron in at least onedirection. Suitable examples of ranges of nanoscale sensor elementsinclude, but are not limited to, for example, elements from about 5 μmto about 1000 μm in one direction, including, from example, about 5 μmto about 500 μm, alternatively about 5 μm to about 400 μm, alternativelyabout 5 μm to about 300 μm, alternatively about 5 μm to about 200 μm,alternatively about 5 μm to about 100 μm, alternatively about 5 μm toabout 50 μm, alternatively about 10 μm to about 1000 μm, alternativelyabout 10 μm to about 750 μm, alternatively about 10 μm to about 500 μm,alternatively about 10 μm to about 250 μm, alternatively about 10 μm toabout 200 μm, alternatively about 10 μm to about 100 μm, alternativelyabout 50 μm to about 1000 μm, alternatively about 50 μm to about 500 μm,alternatively about 50 μm to about 250 μm, alternatively about 50 μm toabout 200 μm, alternatively about 50 μm to about 100 μm, and anycombinations, ranges or amount in-between (e.g. 5 nm, 10 μm, 15 μm, 20μm, 25 nm, 30 μm, 35 μm, 40 μm, 45 μm, 50 μm, 55 μm, 60 μm, 65 μm, 70μm, 80 μm, 90 μm, 100 nm, 125 μm, 150 μm, 175 μm, 200 μm, 225 μm, 250μm, 275 μm, 300 μm, 350 μm, 400 nm, 450 μm, 500 μm, 550 μm, 600 μm, 650μm, 700 μm, 750 μm, 800 μm, 850 μm, 900 nm, 1000 μm, etc.). In referenceto the sensor arrays described herein, the use of the term sensorelement includes the use of a nanoscale sensor element for the sensorand associated methods.

The term “plurality of sensor elements” refers to more than one, forexample, at least two sensor elements. In some embodiments, theplurality of sensor elements includes at least two sensor elements to atleast 1000 sensor elements, preferably about two sensor elements toabout 100 sensor elements. In suitable embodiments, the array comprisesat least two to at least 100 sensor elements, alternatively at least twoto at least 50 sensor elements, alternatively at least 2 to 30 sensorelements, alternatively at least 2 to 20 sensor elements, alternativelyat least 2 to 10 sensor elements, alternatively at least 3 to at least50 sensor elements, alternatively at least 3 to at least 30 sensorelements, alternatively at least 3 to at least 20 sensor elements,alternatively at least 3 to at least 10 sensor elements, alternativelyat least 4 to at least 50 sensor elements, alternatively at least 4 toat least 30 sensor elements, alternatively at least 4 to at least 20sensor elements, alternatively at least 4 to at least 10 sensorelements, and including any number of sensor elements contemplated inbetween (e.g., at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 60,70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 225,250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750, 800, etc.). Insome embodiments, the sensor array comprises at least 6 sensor elementsto at least 20 sensor elements, alternatively at least 6 sensor elementsto at least 10 sensor elements.

The term “plurality of nanoscale sensor elements” refers to more thanone, for example, at least two nanoscale sensor elements. In someembodiments, the plurality of nanoscale sensor elements includes atleast two nanoscale sensor elements to at least 1000 nanoscale sensorelements, preferably about two nanoscale sensor elements to about 100nanoscale sensor elements. In suitable embodiments, the array comprisesat least two to at least 100 nanoscale sensor elements, alternatively atleast two to at least 50 nanoscale sensor elements, alternatively atleast 2 to 30 nanoscale sensor elements, alternatively at least 2 to 20nanoscale sensor elements, alternatively at least 2 to 10 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 3 to at least 50 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 3 to at least 30 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 3 to at least 20 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 3 to at least 10 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 4 to at least 50 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 4 to at least 30 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 4 to at least 20 nanoscalesensor elements, alternatively at least 4 to at least 10 nanoscalesensor elements, and including any number of nanoscale sensor elementscontemplated in between (e.g., at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29,30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140, 150, 160, 170, 180,190, 200, 225, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550, 600, 650, 700, 750,800, etc.).

As used herein, the term “biomolecule corona” refers to the plurality ofdifferent biomolecules that are able to bind to a sensor element. Theterm “biomolecule corona” encompasses “protein corona” which is a termused in the art to refer to the proteins, lipids and other plasmacomponents that bind nanoparticles when they come into contact withbiological samples or biological system. For use herein, the term“biomolecule corona” also encompasses both the soft and hard proteincorona as referred to in the art, see, e.g., Milani et al. “Reversibleversus Irreversible Binding of Transferring to PolystyreneNanoparticles: Soft and Hard Corona” ACS NANO, 2012, 6(3), pp.2532-2541; Mirshafiee et al. “Impact of protein pre-coating on theprotein corona composition and nanoparticle cellular uptake”Biomaterials vol. 75, January 2016 pp. 295-304, Mahmoudi et al.“Emerging understanding of the protein corona at the nano-biointerfaces” Nanotoday 11(6) December 2016, pp. 817-832, and Mahmoudi etal. “Protein-Nanoparticle Interactions: Opportunities and Challenges”Chem. Rev., 2011, 111(9), pp. 5610-5637, the contents of which areincorporated by reference in their entireties. As described in the art,adsorption curve shows the build-up of a strongly bound monolayer up tothe point of monolayer saturation (at a geometrically definedprotein-to-NP ratio), beyond which a secondary, weakly bound layer isformed. While the first layer is irreversibly bound (hard corona), thesecondary layer (soft corona) exhibits dynamic exchange. Proteins thatadsorb with high affinity form what is known as the “hard” corona,consisting of tightly bound proteins that do not readily desorb, andproteins that adsorb with low affinity form the “soft” corona,consisting of loosely bound proteins. Soft and hard corona can also bedefined based on their exchange times. Hard corona usually shows muchlarger exchange times in the order of several hours. See, e.g., M.Rahman et al. Protein-Nanoparticle Interactions, Spring Series inBiophysics 15, 2013, incorporated by reference in its entirety.

The term “biomolecule corona signature” refers to the composition,signature or pattern of different biomolecules that are bound to eachseparate sensor element. The signature not only refers to the differentbiomolecules but also the differences in the amount, level or quantityof the biomolecule bound to the sensor element, or differences in theconformational state of the biomolecule that is bound to the sensorelement. It is contemplated that the biomolecule corona signatures ofeach sensor elements may contain some of the same biomolecules, maycontain distinct biomolecules with regard to the other sensor elements,and/or may differ in level or quantity, type or confirmation of thebiomolecule. The biomolecule corona signature may depend on not only thephysiocochemical properties of the sensor element, but also the natureof the sample and the duration of exposure. In some cases, thebiomolecule corona signature is a protein corona signature. In anothercase, the biomolecule corona signature is a polysaccharide coronasignature. In yet another case, the biomolecule corona signature is ametabolite corona signature. In some cases, the biomolecule coronasignature is a lipidomic corona signature.

In some embodiments, the biomolecule corona signature comprises thebiomolecules found in a soft corona and a hard corona. In someembodiments, the soft corona is a soft protein corona. In someembodiments, the hard corona is a hard protein corona.

The term “biomolecule” refers to biological components that may beinvolved in corona formation, including, but not limited to, forexample, proteins, polypeptides, polysaccharides, a sugar, a lipid, alipoprotein, a metabolite, an oligonucleotide, metabolome or combinationthereof. It is contemplated that the biomolecule corona signatures ofeach sensor elements may contain some of the same biomolecules, maycontain distinct biomolecules with regard to the other sensor elements,and/or may differ in level or quantity, type or confirmation of thebiomolecule that binds to each sensor element. In one embodiment, thebiomolecule is selected from the group of proteins, nucleic acids,lipids, and metabolomes.

In some embodiments, the sensor array comprises, consists essentially ofor consists of a first sensor element that produces a first biomoleculecorona signature and at least one second sensor element that produces atleast one second biomolecule corona signature when the sensor array iscontacted with a biological sample. A biomolecule fingerprint is thecombination of the first biomolecule signature and the at least onesecond biomolecule signature. It is contemplated that the biomoleculesignature can be made from at least two biomolecule corona signatures toas many different biomolecule signatures are assayed, e.g. at least 1000different biomolecule corona signatures. The biomolecule corona may beassayed separately for each sensor element to determine the biomoleculecorona signature for each element and combined to determine thebiomolecule fingerprint or the two or more biomolecule corona can beassayed at the same time to develop the biomolecule fingerprint at once.

In some embodiments, the biomolecule fingerprint includes at least twobiomolecule corona signatures. In some embodiments, the biomoleculefingerprint includes at two biomolecule corona signatures to at least1000 biomolecule corona signatures, preferably about two biomoleculecorona signatures to about 100 biomolecule corona signatures. Insuitable embodiments, the biomolecule fingerprint comprises at least twoto at least 100 biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at leasttwo to at least 50 biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least2 to 30 biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 2 to 20biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 2 to 10biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 3 to at least 50biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 3 to at least 30biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 3 to at least 20biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 3 to at least 10biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 4 to at least 50biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 4 to at least 30biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 4 to at least 20biomolecule corona signatures, alternatively at least 4 to at least 10biomolecule corona signatures, and including any number of biomoleculecorona signatures contemplated in between (e.g., at least 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 130, 140,150, 160, 170, 180, 190, 200, 225, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450, 500, 550,600, 650, 700, 750, 800, etc.).

Advances in proteomic analyses using mass spectrometry have offered newinsights into the changes that take place across the spectrum of healthand disease including early-stage cancer. Yet the sensitivity andspecificity of mass spectrometry approaches have not been adequate forrobust early detection of cancers in part due to the high noise createdby the 10000 of proteins comprising the human proteome, with estimatedconcentrations spanning 35-50 mg/ml for albumin to 1-10 pg/ml for somecytokines. The existing technologies have required a trade-off betweenthe depth of coverage and the throughput of processing of plasmaproteins. Several attempts have been made to substantially increase thecurrent low levels of protein detection, including depletions of highlyabundant proteins, isobaric labeling at the peptide level formultiplexed relative quantification, post-depletion plasma fractionationstrategies, biomarker harvesting techniques, mathematical approaches foranalyzing high-quality data sets, and multiplexed workflow (i.e., acombination of approaches). Despite such efforts, mass-spectrometryapproaches to plasma proteomics have not met with robust success in theearly detection of cancers. In fact no prior study, proteomic orotherwise, has reported accurate prediction and classification of arange of cancers, including the earliest pre-symptomatic stages. Thepresent sensor array has provided the first detection system thataccurately predicts and classifies a disease state, includingpre-symptomatic disease state for a number of different diseases.

Prior attempts have tried to use the “disease-specific protein corona”to identify one cancer type using gel electrophoresis and changes inaggregation size of nanoparticles. However, as we show in the Examplesbelow, the subtle differences in the protein corona at the surface ofone type of nanoparticle were not sufficient for robust and accurateidentification and discrimination of cancers with acceptable predictionaccuracy, mainly due to the persistent issue of inadequate proteomiccoverage. The sensory array described herein is able to accuratelyclassify disease states. Not only it is able to predict the diseasestate, but it is also able to classify patients who are pre-symptomaticof the disease (e.g. Alzheimer's) or classify patients according to thetype of disease (e.g. type of cancer).

To materially enhance the capacity of the protein corona for robust andaccurate cancer detection with excellent prediction capacity, theinventors developed a sensor array (sometimes referred to herein as aProtein Corona Nanosystem or sensor array nanosystem). Compared withprevious approaches limited to the surface of a single nanoparticle, itprovides significantly more comprehensive proteomics data over a widerdynamic range of plasma protein concentrations. The sensor array allowsfor the sampling a complex biological sample (e.g., human plasma sample)using multi-nanoparticles with different physicochemical properties tosignificantly increase the number and range of both low- andhigh-abundance proteins identified without protein depletion. Thiseffectively reduces the noise in the vast proteomic informationavailable, yielding more-accurate early differentiation of the proteomicsignature that is characteristic of a disease. In addition, because ofthe combination of protein-nanoparticle and protein-protein interactionthat is uniquely derived using the sensor array, each type of proteinmay be present in different concentrations on the surface of differentnanoparticles, providing additional proteomic information. The use ofmulti-nanoparticles with different physicochemical properties is mainlydriven by our recent findings that even small alterations to thephysicochemical properties of nanoparticles can elicit dramatic butreproducible changes in the protein corona composition.

The present sensor array has a sensitivity and dynamic range of ten (10)orders of magnitude in terms of protein detection usingmass-spectroscopy approaches. The present assay is able to detectproteins that are found in the sub-ng range within a sample. This assayor approach has a much greater dynamic range than current assays formeasuring proteins within a sample. For example, mass spectrometry onlyhas a dynamic range 4-6 order of magnitude. This novel sensor array hasthe ability to sample a greater dynamic range than has previously beenachievable. The present sensor array allows for detection anddetermination of low abundant and rare proteins that we not previouslyable to be detected.

The term “sample” refers to a biological sample or a complex biologicalsample obtained from a subject. Suitable biological samples include, butare not limited to, biological fluids, including, but not limited to,systemic blood, plasma, serum, lung lavage, cell lysates, menstrualblood, urine, processed tissue samples, amniotic fluid, cerebrospinalfluid, tears, saliva, semen and the like. In a preferred embodiment, thesample is a blood or serum sample. Blood plasma contains severalthousands of different proteins with twelve orders of magnitudedifferences in the concentrations of these proteins. The present sensorarray is able to detect changes within these blood samples over time orover disease states of the subject.

In some embodiments, the biological fluids or complex biological samplesare prepared by methods and kits known in the art. For example, somebiological samples (e.g. menstrual blood, blood samples, semen, etc.)may first be centrifuged at low speed to remove cell debris, blood clotsand other cellular components that may interfere with the array. Inother embodiments, for example, tissue specimens may be processed, e.g.tissue samples may be minced or homogenized, treated with enzymes tobreak up the tissue and/or centrifuged to remove cellular debrisallowing for the assaying and extraction of the biomolecules within thetissue samples. Suitable methods of isolating and/or properly preparingand storing blood samples are known in the art, and may include, but arenot limited to, the addition of an anti-coagulant agent.

Suitable sensor elements include, but are not limited to, for example,particles, such as organic particles, non-organic particles orcombinations thereof. In some embodiments the particles are, forexample, nanoparticles, microparticles, micelles, liposomes, iron oxide,graphene, silica, protein-based particles, polystyrene, silver, and goldparticles, quantum dots, palladium, platinum, titanium, and combinationsthereof. In some embodiments, nanoparticles are liposomes. One skilledin the art would be able to select and prepare suitable particles. Insome preferred embodiments, the sensor elements are nanoscale sensorelements. Suitable nanoscale sensor elements are less than 1 micron inat least one direction. In some aspects, the nanoscale sensor elementsare less than about 100 μm in at least one direction.

Overview

The present disclosure provides a method of detecting a disease stateusing a biomolecule corona nanosystem. In one embodiment, the methodcomprises detecting a disease-specific protein corona.

Sensor Arrays

FIG. 65 shows an exemplary scheme of the presently disclosed arraysystem. As shown at step 1 of FIG. 65, a complex biological sample(e.g., blood 704) can be collected from a subject 702 expressing abiological state 703 (e.g., a disease state, for example before anyphysical symptoms of the disease and/or during early and intermediatestages of a disease). Suitable biological samples 704 include, but arenot limited to, biological fluids, including, but not limited to,systemic blood, plasma, serum, lung lavage, cell lysates, menstrualblood, urine, processed tissue samples, amniotic fluid, cerebrospinalfluid, tears, saliva, semen and the like. In a preferred embodiment, thesample is a blood or serum sample. In some embodiments, plasma 706 ofcan be separated from blood cells 708 of subjects expressing abiological state 703 (e.g. healthy people (non-disease state) and cancerpatients (disease state), as shown at step 2 of FIG. 65.

Next, as shown at step 3 of FIG. 65, a complex biological sample (e.g.,plasma 706) can be incubated with a sensor array 710 comprising aplurality of particles 712 with different physicochemical properties.The plurality of particles 712 can be incubated with the plasma 706 toallow biomolecules in the plasma 706 (e.g., proteins in the plasma 706)to bind to one or more of the particles 712. Subsequently, as shown atstep 4 of FIG. 65, the biomolecules (e.g. proteins) bound to theparticles 712 can be isolated in a protein solution 714 for furtheranalysis, for example to determine the compositions of the proteinsbound to each type of particle 712 (e.g., anionic, neutral and cationicparticles 712).

The protein solution 714 can be characterized by, for example as shownat step 5 of FIG. 65, liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry(LC-MS/MS) 716. Proteins identified using LC-MS/MS 716 can then beanalyzed at step 6 of FIG. 65 to determine a biomolecule fingerprint 718(e.g. representative of proteins, nucleic acids, lipids andpolysaccharides that bind to one or more of particles 712) associatedwith the biological state 703.

At step 7 of FIG. 65, a computer 720 (e.g., computer system 101 in FIG.66) can be used to associate a biomolecule fingerprint 718 (e.g.,protein fingerprint) with a biological state 703 (e.g. health state,disease state). For example, analysis of a biomolecule fingerprint 718(e.g. protein fingerprint) of at least two samples (e.g. complexbiological samples such as plasma 706) can be conducted with a computersystem 720 to generate an association 722 between the biological state703 and the biomolecule fingerprint 718 (at step 8 of FIG. 65). Thegeneration of association 722 can be by an association analysis orstatistical classification using methods known in the art, including,but not limited to, a wide variety of supervised and unsupervised dataanalysis and clustering approaches such as hierarchical cluster analysis(HCA), principal component analysis (PCA), Partial least squaresDiscriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), machine learning (also known as randomforest), logistic regression, decision trees, support vector machine(SVM), k-nearest neighbors, naive bayes, linear regression, polynomialregression, SVM for regression, K-means clustering, and hidden Markovmodels, among others. In other words, the biomolecule fingerprint 718 ofeach sample (e.g. plasma 706) are compared/analyzed (e.g. using acomputer 720) with each other to determine with statistical significancewhat patterns are common between the individual fingerprints todetermine a biological state that is associated with the biomolecule(e.g. protein) fingerprint 718.

The association 722 can link the biomolecule fingerprint 718 (e.g.,protein fingerprint) to a wide variety of biological states 703. Forexample, comparison of biomolecule fingerprints 718 between a subject702 diagnosed with a disease (i.e., biological state 703 is a diseasestate) and a subject 702 not diagnosed with the disease (i.e.,biological state 703 is a non-disease state) can give rise to anassociation 722 between the biomolecule fingerprint 718 of the subject702 with the disease and the disease state. Such an association 722between the biomarker fingerprint 718 and the disease state (i.e.,biological state 703) can in some embodiments be determined very earlyduring the progression of a disease (i.e., before any physical symptomsof the disease manifest and/or before diagnosis of the disease) or atlater times during disease progression.

Other examples of biological states 703 that can be associated with abiomolecule fingerprint 718 include responsiveness or non-responsivenessto a drug or pharmaceutical, level of activation of the immune system(e.g., due to exposure of a subject to an exogenous antigen),susceptibility of a subject to adverse effects associated withadministration of a drug, and identification of a subject's potential toexhibit an allergic reaction to administration of a particularcomposition or substance.

Computer Control Systems

The present disclosure provides computer control systems that areprogrammed to implement methods of the disclosure. FIG. 66 shows acomputer system 100 that is programmed or otherwise configured toassociate a biomolecule fingerprint 718 with a biological state 703.This determination, analysis or statistical classification is done bymethods known in the art, including, but not limited to, for example, awide variety of supervised and unsupervised data analysis and clusteringapproaches such as hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA), principalcomponent analysis (PCA), Partial least squares Discriminant Analysis(PLS-DA), machine learning (also known as random forest), logisticregression, decision trees, support vector machine (SVM), k-nearestneighbors, naive bayes, linear regression, polynomial regression, SVMfor regression, K-means clustering, and hidden Markov models, amongothers. The computer system 100 can perform various aspects of analyzingthe biomolecule fingerprints 718 of the present disclosure, such as, forexample, comparing/analyzing the biomolecule corona of several samplesto determine with statistical significance what patterns are commonbetween the individual biomolecule coronas to determine a biomoleculefingerprint 718 that is associated with the biological state 703. Thecomputer system can be used to develop classifiers to detect anddiscriminate different biomolecule fingerprints 718 (e.g.,characteristic of the composition of a protein corona). Data collectedfrom the presently disclosed sensor array can be used to train a machinelearning algorithm, specifically an algorithm that receives arraymeasurements from a patient and outputs specific biomolecule coronacompositions from each patient. Before training the algorithm, raw datafrom the array can be first denoised to reduce variability in individualvariables.

Machine learning can be generalized as the ability of a learning machineto perform accurately on new, unseen examples/tasks after havingexperienced a learning data set. Machine learning may include thefollowing concepts and methods. Supervised learning concepts may includeAODE; Artificial neural network, such as Backpropagation, Autoencoders,Hopfield networks, Boltzmann machines, Restricted Boltzmann Machines,and Spiking neural networks; Bayesian statistics, such as Bayesiannetwork and Bayesian knowledge base; Case-based reasoning; Gaussianprocess regression; Gene expression programming; Group method of datahandling (GMDH); Inductive logic programming; Instance-based learning;Lazy learning; Learning Automata; Learning Vector Quantization; LogisticModel Tree; Minimum message length (decision trees, decision graphs,etc.), such as Nearest Neighbor Algorithm and Analogical modeling;Probably approximately correct learning (PAC) learning; Ripple downrules, a knowledge acquisition methodology; Symbolic machine learningalgorithms; Support vector machines; Random Forests; Ensembles ofclassifiers, such as Bootstrap aggregating (bagging) and Boosting(meta-algorithm); Ordinal classification; Information fuzzy networks(IFN); Conditional Random Field; ANOVA; Linear classifiers, such asFisher's linear discriminant, Linear regression, Logistic regression,Multinomial logistic regression, Naive Bayes classifier, Perceptron,Support vector machines; Quadratic classifiers; k-nearest neighbor;Boosting; Decision trees, such as C4.5, Random forests, ID3, CART, SLIQ,SPRINT; Bayesian networks, such as Naive Bayes; and Hidden Markovmodels. Unsupervised learning concepts may include;Expectation-maximization algorithm; Vector Quantization; Generativetopographic map; Information bottleneck method; Artificial neuralnetwork, such as Self-organizing map; Association rule learning, suchas, Apriori algorithm, Eclat algorithm, and FP-growth algorithm;Hierarchical clustering, such as Single-linkage clustering andConceptual clustering; Cluster analysis, such as, K-means algorithm,Fuzzy clustering, DBSCAN, and OPTICS algorithm; and Outlier Detection,such as Local Outlier Factor. Semi-supervised learning concepts mayinclude; Generative models; Low-density separation; Graph-based methods;and Co-training. Reinforcement learning concepts may include; Temporaldifference learning; Q-learning; Learning Automata; and SARSA. Deeplearning concepts may include; Deep belief networks; Deep Boltzmannmachines; Deep Convolutional neural networks; Deep Recurrent neuralnetworks; and Hierarchical temporal memory.

The computer system 100 depicted in FIG. 66 is adapted to implement amethod described herein. The system 100 includes a central computerserver 101 that is programmed to implement exemplary methods describedherein. The server 101 includes a central processing unit (CPU, also“processor”) 105 which can be a single core processor, a multi coreprocessor, or plurality of processors for parallel processing. Theserver 101 also includes memory 110 (e.g., random access memory,read-only memory, flash memory); electronic storage unit 115 (e.g. harddisk); communications interface 120 (e.g., network adaptor) forcommunicating with one or more other systems; and peripheral devices 125which may include cache, other memory, data storage, and/or electronicdisplay adaptors. The memory 110, storage unit 115, interface 120, andperipheral devices 125 are in communication with the processor 105through a communications bus (solid lines), such as a motherboard. Thestorage unit 115 can be a data storage unit for storing data. The server101 is operatively coupled to a computer network (“network”) 130 withthe aid of the communications interface 120. The network 130 can be theInternet, an intranet and/or an extranet, an intranet and/or extranetthat is in communication with the Internet, a telecommunication or datanetwork. The network 130 in some cases, with the aid of the server 101,can implement a peer-to-peer network, which may enable devices coupledto the server 101 to behave as a client or a server.

The storage unit 115 can store files, such as subject reports, and/orcommunications with the data about individuals, or any aspect of dataassociated with the present disclosure.

The computer server 101 can communicate with one or more remote computersystems through the network 130. The one or more remote computer systemsmay be, for example, personal computers, laptops, tablets, telephones,Smart phones, or personal digital assistants.

In some applications the computer system 100 includes a single server101. In other situations, the system includes multiple servers incommunication with one another through an intranet, extranet and/or theinternet.

The server 101 can be adapted to store measurement data or a database asprovided herein, patient information from the subject, such as, forexample, medical history, family history, demographic data and/or otherclinical or personal information of potential relevance to a particularapplication. Such information can be stored on the storage unit 115 orthe server 101 and such data can be transmitted through a network.

Methods as described herein can be implemented by way of machine (orcomputer processor) executable code (or software) stored on anelectronic storage location of the server 101, such as, for example, onthe memory 110, or electronic storage unit 115. During use, the code canbe executed by the processor 105. In some cases, the code can beretrieved from the storage unit 115 and stored on the memory 110 forready access by the processor 105. In some situations, the electronicstorage unit 115 can be precluded, and machine-executable instructionsare stored on memory 110. Alternatively, the code can be executed on asecond computer system 140.

Aspects of the systems and methods provided herein, such as the server101, can be embodied in programming. Various aspects of the technologymay be thought of as “products” or “articles of manufacture” typicallyin the form of machine (or processor) executable code and/or associateddata that is carried on or embodied in a type of machine readablemedium. Machine-executable code can be stored on an electronic storageunit, such memory (e.g., read-only memory, random-access memory, flashmemory) or a hard disk. “Storage” type media can include any or all ofthe tangible memory of the computers, processors or the like, orassociated modules thereof, such as various semiconductor memories, tapedrives, disk drives and the like, which may provide non-transitorystorage at any time for the software programming. All or portions of thesoftware may at times be communicated through the Internet or variousother telecommunication networks. Such communications, for example, mayenable loading of the software from one computer or processor intoanother, for example, from a management server or host computer into thecomputer platform of an application server. Thus, another type of mediathat may bear the software elements includes optical, electrical, andelectromagnetic waves, such as used across physical interfaces betweenlocal devices, through wired and optical landline networks and overvarious air-links. The physical elements that carry such waves, such aswired or wireless likes, optical links, or the like, also may beconsidered as media bearing the software. As used herein, unlessrestricted to non-transitory, tangible “storage” media, terms such ascomputer or machine “readable medium” can refer to any medium thatparticipates in providing instructions to a processor for execution.

The computer systems described herein may comprise computer-executablecode for performing any of the algorithms or algorithms-based methodsdescribed herein. In some applications the algorithms described hereinwill make use of a memory unit that is comprised of at least onedatabase.

Data relating to the present disclosure can be transmitted over anetwork or connections for reception and/or review by a receiver. Thereceiver can be but is not limited to the subject to whom the reportpertains; or to a caregiver thereof, e.g., a health care provider,manager, other health care professional, or other caretaker; a person orentity that performed and/or ordered the analysis. The receiver can alsobe a local or remote system for storing such reports (e.g. servers orother systems of a “cloud computing” architecture). In one embodiment, acomputer-readable medium includes a medium suitable for transmission ofa result of an analysis of a biological sample using the methodsdescribed herein.

Aspects of the systems and methods provided herein, such as the computersystem 101 in FIG. 66 can be embodied in programming. Various aspects ofthe technology may be thought of as “products” or “articles ofmanufacture” typically in the form of machine (or processor) executablecode and/or associated data that is carried on or embodied in a type ofmachine readable medium. Machine-executable code can be stored on anelectronic storage unit, such as memory (e.g., read-only memory,random-access memory, flash memory) or a hard disk. “Storage” type mediacan include any or all of the tangible memory of the computers,processors or the like, or associated modules thereof, such as varioussemiconductor memories, tape drives, disk drives and the like, which mayprovide non-transitory storage at any time for the software programming.All or portions of the software may at times be communicated through theInternet or various other telecommunication networks. Suchcommunications, for example, may enable loading of the software from onecomputer or processor into another, for example, from a managementserver or host computer into the computer platform of an applicationserver. Thus, another type of media that may bear the software elementsincludes optical, electrical and electromagnetic waves, such as usedacross physical interfaces between local devices, through wired andoptical landline networks and over various air-links. The physicalelements that carry such waves, such as wired or wireless links, opticallinks or the like, also may be considered as media bearing the software.As used herein, unless restricted to non-transitory, tangible “storage”media, terms such as computer or machine “readable medium” refer to anymedium that participates in providing instructions to a processor forexecution.

Hence, a machine readable medium, such as computer-executable code, maytake many forms, including but not limited to, a tangible storagemedium, a carrier wave medium or physical transmission medium.Non-volatile storage media include, for example, optical or magneticdisks, such as any of the storage devices in any computer(s) or thelike, such as may be used to implement the databases, etc. shown in thedrawings. Volatile storage media include dynamic memory, such as mainmemory of such a computer platform. Tangible transmission media includecoaxial cables; copper wire and fiber optics, including the wires thatcomprise a bus within a computer system. Carrier-wave transmission mediamay take the form of electric or electromagnetic signals, or acoustic orlight waves such as those generated during radio frequency (RF) andinfrared (IR) data communications. Common forms of computer-readablemedia therefore include for example: a floppy disk, a flexible disk,hard disk, magnetic tape, any other magnetic medium, a CD-ROM, DVD orDVD-ROM, any other optical medium, punch cards paper tape, any otherphysical storage medium with patterns of holes, a RAM, a ROM, a PROM andEPROM, a FLASH-EPROM, any other memory chip or cartridge, a carrier wavetransporting data or instructions, cables or links transporting such acarrier wave, or any other medium from which a computer may readprogramming code and/or data. Many of these forms of computer readablemedia may be involved in carrying one or more sequences of one or moreinstructions to a processor for execution.

Physicochemical Properties

In some embodiments, the plurality of sensor elements comprises,consists essentially of, or consists of a plurality of particles,wherein each particle is differentiated for each other by at least onephysiocochemical property such that each sensor element has a uniquebiomolecule corona signature when placed in contact with the samesample.

The physiocochemical property of the sensor element found in an arrayrefer to, for example, the composition, size, surface charge,hydrophobicity, hydrophilicity, surface functionality (surfacefunctional groups), surface topography, surface curvature and shape. Theterm composition encompasses the use of different types of materials anddifferences in the chemical and/or physical properties of materials, forexample, conductivity of the material chosen between the sensorelements.

Surface curvature is generally determined by the nanoparticle size.Thus, at a nanometer scale, as the size of the nanoparticles changes,the surface curvature of the particle changes, and this change of thesurface curvature affects the binding selectivity of the surface. Forexample, at certain curvature, the surface of the particle may have abinding affinity for a specific type of biomolecule where a differentcurvature will have a different binding affinity and/or a bindingaffinity for a different biomolecule. The curvature can be adjusted tocreate a plurality of sensor elements with altered affinity fordifferent biomolecules. A sensor array can be created including aplurality of sensor elements having different curvatures (e.g. differentsizes) which results in a plurality of sensor elements each with adifferent biomolecule corona signature.

Surface morphology may also be modified by methods such as patterningthe surface to provide different affinities, engineering surfacecurvatures on multiple length scales and the like. Patterning thesurface is provided by, for example, forming the sensor elements byblock polymerization in which the at least two blocks have differentchemistries, forming the nanoparticles using mixtures of at least twodifferent polymers and phase separating the polymers duringpolymerization, and/or cross-linking the separate polymers followingphase separation. Engineered surface curvature on multiple length scalesis provided, for example, by employing Pickering emulsions (Sacanna etal. 2007) stabilized by finely divided particles for the synthesis ofnanoparticles. In some embodiments, finely dividend particles areselected from, for example, silicates, aluminates, titanates, metaloxides such as aluminum, silicon, titanium, nickel, cobalt, iron,manganese, chromium, or vanadium oxides, carbo blacks, and nitrides orcarbides, e.g., boron nitride, boron carbide, silicon nitride, orsilicon carbide, among others.

For example, the sensor elements including nanoscale sensor elements mayeach be functionalized to have different physicochemical properties.Suitable methods of functionalizing the sensor elements are known in theart and depend on composition of the sensor element (e.g. gold, ironoxide, silica, silver, etc.), and include, but not limited to, forexample aminopropyl functionalized, amine functionalized, boronic acidfunctionalized, carboxylic acid functionalized, methyl functionalized,N-succinimidyl ester functionalized, PEG functionalized, streptavidinfunctionalized, methyl ether functionalized, triethoxylpropylaminosilanefunctionalized, thiol functionalized, PCP functionalized, citratefunctionalized, lipoic acid functionalized, BPEI functionalized,carboxyl functionalized, hydroxyl functionalized, and the like. In oneembodiment, the nanoparticles may be functionalized with an amine group(—NH₂ or a carboxyl group (COOH). In some embodiments, the nanoscalesensor elements are functionalized with a polar functional group.Non-limiting examples of the polar functional group comprise carboxylgroup, a hydroxyl group, a thiol group, a cyano group, a nitro group, anammonium group, an imidazolium group, a sulfonium group, a pyridiniumgroup, a pyrrolidinium group, a phosphonium group or any combinationthereof. In some embodiments, the functional group is an acidicfunctional group (e.g., sulfonic acid group, carboxyl group, and thelike), a basic functional group (e.g., amino group, cyclic secondaryamino group (such as pyrrolidyl group and piperidyl group), pyridylgroup, imidazole group, guanidine group, etc.), a carbamoyl group, ahydroxyl group, an aldehyde group and the like. In some embodiments, thepolar functional group is an ionic functional group. Non-limitingexamples of the ionic function group comprise an ammonium group, animidazolium group, a sulfonium group, a pyridinium group, apyrrolidinium group, a phosphonium group. In some embodiments, thesensor elements are functionalized with a polymerizable functionalgroup. Non-limiting examples of the polymerizable functional groupinclude a vinyl group and a (meth)acrylic group. In some embodiments,the functional group is pyrrolidyl acrylate, acrylic acid, methacrylicacid, acrylamide, 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl methacrylate, hydroxyethylmethacrylate and the like.

In other embodiments, the physiocochemical properties of the sensorelements may be modified by modification of the surface charge. Forexample, the surface can be modified to provide a net neutral charge, anet positive surface charge, a net negative surface charge, or azwitterionic charge. The charge of the surface can be controlled eitherduring synthesis of the element or by post-synthesis modification of thecharge through surface functionalization. For polymeric nanoparticles,differences in charge can be obtained during synthesis by usingdifferent synthesis procedures, different charged comonomers, and ininorganic substances by having mixed oxidation states.

Nanoparticles

In some embodiments, the particles are nanoparticles. In someembodiments, the particles are liposomes. The liposomes may comprise anylipid capable of forming a particle. The term “lipid” refers to a groupof organic compounds that are esters of fatty acids and arecharacterized by being insoluble in water but soluble in many organicsolvents. Lipids are usually divided in at least three classes: (1)“simple lipids” which include fats and oils as well as waxes; (2)“compound lipids” which include phospholipids and glycolipids; and (3)“derived lipids” such as steroids.

In one embodiment, the liposome comprises one or more cationic lipids oranionic lipids, and one or more stabilizing lipids. Suitable liposomesare known in the art and include, but are not limited to, for example,DOPG (1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1′-rac-glycerol), DOTAP(1,2-Dioleiyl-3 trimethylammonium-propane)-DOPE(dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine), CHOL (DOPC-Cholesterol), andcombinations thereof.

The lipid-based surface of a liposome can contact a subset ofbiomolecules (e.g., proteins) of a complex biological sample (e.g.,plasma, or any sample having a complex mix of biomolecules such asproteins and nucleic acid and at least one of a polysaccharide andlipid) at a lipid-biomolecule (e.g. protein) interface, thereby bindingthe subset of proteins to produce a pattern of biomolecule (e.g.protein) binding.

In one embodiment, the liposome comprises a cationic lipid. As usedherein, the term “cationic lipid” refers to a lipid that is cationic orbecomes cationic (protonated) as the pH is lowered below the pK of theionizable group of the lipid, but is progressively more neutral athigher pH values. At pH values below the pK the lipid is then able toassociate with negatively charged nucleic acids. In certain embodiments,the cationic lipid comprises a zwitterionic lipid that assumes apositive charge on pH decrease. In certain embodiments, the liposomescomprise cationic lipid. In some embodiments, cationic lipid comprisesany of a number of lipid species which carry a net positive charge at aselective pH, such as physiological pH. Such lipids include, but are notlimited to, N,N-dioleyl-N,N-dimethylammonium chloride (DODAC);N-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl)-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTMA);N,N-distearyl-N,N-dimethylammonium bromide (DDAB);N-(2,3-dioleoyloxy)propyl)-N,N,N-trimethylammonium chloride (DOTAP);3-(N-(N′,N′-dimethylaminoethane)-carbamoyl)cholesterol (DC-Chol),N-(1-(2,3-dioleoyloxy)propyl)-N-2-(sperminecarboxamido)ethyl)-N,N-dimethy-lammoniumtrifluoracetate (DOSPA), dioctadecylamidoglycyl carboxyspermine (DOGS),1,2-dioleoyl-3-dimethylammonium propane (DODAP),N,N-dimethyl-2,3-dioleoyloxy)propylamine (DODMA),N-(1,2-dimyristyloxyprop-3-yl)-N,N-dimethyl-N-hydroxyethyl ammoniumbromide (DMRIE), 1,2-dioleoyl-sn-3-phosphoethanolamine (DOPE),N-(1-(2,3-dioleyloxy)propyl)-N-(2-(sperminecarboxamido)ethyl)-N,N-dimethy-lammoniumtrifluoroacetate (DOSPA), dioctadecylamidoglycyl carboxyspermine (DOGS),and 1,2-ditetradecanoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DMPC). Thefollowing lipids are cationic and have a positive charge at belowphysiological pH: DODAP, DODMA, DMDMA,1,2-dilinoleyloxy-N,N-dimethylaminopropane (DLinDMA),1,2-dilinolenyloxy-N,N-dimethylaminopropane (DLenDMA). In someembodiment, the lipid is an amino lipid.

In certain embodiments, the liposome comprises one or more additionallipids which stabilize the formation of particles during theirformation. Suitable stabilizing lipids include neutral lipids andanionic lipids. The term “neutral lipid” refers to any one of a numberof lipid species that exist in either an uncharged or neutralzwitterionic form at physiological pH. Representative neutral lipidsinclude diaclphosphatidylcholines, diacylphosphatidylethanolamines,ceramides, sphingomyelins, dihydro sphingomyelins, cephalins, andcerebrosides. Exemplary neutral lipids include, for example,distearoylphosphatidylcholine (DSPC), dioleoylphosphatidylcholine(DOPC), dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine (DPPC),dioleoylphosphatidylglycerol (DOPG), dipalmitoylphosphatidylglycerol(DPPG), dioleoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine (DOPE),palmitoyloleoylphosphatidylcholine (POPC),palmitoyloleoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine (POPE) anddioleoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine4-(N-maleimidomethyl)-cyclohexane-1-carboxylate (DOPE-mal), dipalmitoylphosphatidyl ethanolamine (DPPE), dimyristoylphosphoethanolamine (DMPE),distearoyl-phosphatidylethanolamine (DSPE), 16-O-monomethyl PE,16-O-dimethyl PE, 18-1-trans PE, 1-stearioyl-2-oleoyl-phosphatidyethanolamine (SOPE), and 1,2-dielaidoyl-sn-glycero-3-phophoethanolamine(transDOPE). In one embodiment, the neutral lipid is1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine (DSPC).

The lipid nanoparticles may comprise liposomes that includephospholipids. The liposomes may include phosphatidylcholine. Componentsof the liposomes may also include variants of polyethylene glycol (PEG).For example, the PEG may be branched. The PEG may be unbranched. The PEGmay comprise a chemical structure of the following formula:H—(O—CH₂—CH₂)n-OH, where n is an integer from 2-200.

The term “anionic lipid” refers to any lipid that is negatively chargedat physiological pH. These lipids include phosphatidylglycerol,cardiolipin diacylphosphatidylserine, diacylphosphatidic acid,N-dodecanoylphosphatidylethanolamines,N-succinylphosphatidylethanolamines,N-glutarylphosphatidylethanolamines, lysylphosphatidyiglycerols,palmitoyloleyolphosphatidylglycerol (POPG), and other anionic modifyinggroups joined to neutral lipids. In certain embodiments, the liposomecomprises glycolipids (e.g., monosialoganglioside GM.sub.1). In certainembodiments, the liposome comprises a sterol, such as cholesterol. Incertain embodiments, the liposome comprises an additional,stabilizing-lipid which is a polyethylene glycol-lipid. Suitablepolyethylene glycol-lipids include PEG-modifiedphosphatidylethanolamine, PEG-modified phosphatidic acid, PEG-modifiedceramides (e.g., PEG-CerC14 or PEG-CerC20), PEG-modified dialkylamines,PEG-modified diacylglycerols, PEG-modified dialkylglycerols.Representative polyethylene glycol-lipids include PEG-c-DOMG, PEG-c-DMA,and PEG-s-DMG. In one embodiment, the polyethylene glycol-lipid isN-[(methoxy poly(ethylene glycol).sub.2000)carbamyl]-1,2-dimyristyloxlpropyl-3-amine (PEG-c-DMA). In oneembodiment, the polyethylene glycol-lipid is PEG-c-DOMG).

Suitable liposomes may be solid lipid nanoparticles (SLN) which can bemade of solid lipid, emulsifier and/or water/solvent. SLN may include,but are not limited to, a combination of the following ingredients:triglycerides (tri-stearin), partial glycerides (Imwitor), fatty acids(stearic acid, palmitic acid), and steroids (cholesterol) and waxes(cetyl palmitate). Various emulsifiers and their combination (Pluronic F68, F 127) have been used to stabilize the lipid dispersion. Suitableingredients for the use in preparing SNL sensor elements include, butare not limited to, e.g., phospholipids, glycerol, poloxamer 188, soyphosphatidyl choline, compritol, cetyl palmitate, PEG 2000, PEG 4500,Tween 85, ethyl oleate, Na alginate, ethanol/butanol, tristearinglyceride, PEG 400, isopropyl myristate, Pluronic F68, Tween 80,trimyristin, tristearin, trilaurin, stearic acid, glyceryl caprate asCapmul®MCM C10, theobroma oil, triglyceride coconut oil, 1-octadecanol,glycerol behenate as Compritol® 888 ATO, glycerol palmitostearate asPrecirol® ATO 5, and cetyl palmitate wax and the like.

In some embodiments, the plurality of sensor elements comprise, consistessentially of, or consist of a plurality of half particles of differentgeometric shapes which can be made by molding technology, 3D printing or4D printing. Suitable half particles are known in the art, and include,but are not limited to half and partial particles in any geometricshape, for example, spheres, rods, triangles, cubes and combinationsthereof. Suitably, in one embodiment, the plurality of half particleshave different physicochemical properties made by 3-D printing.

In some embodiments, the sensor elements, including nanoscale sensorelements, are made by 3D or 4 D printing. Suitable methods of 3D and 4Dprinting of sensor elements, including nanoscale sensor elements areknown in the art. Suitable material for 3D and 4D printing include, butis not limited to, e.g., plastics and synthetic polymers (e.g.,poly-ethylene glycol-diacrylate (PEG-DA), poly (e-caprolactone) (PCL),poly(propylene oxide (PPO), poly(ethylene oxide) (PEO) etc.), metals,powders, glass, ceramics, and hydrogels. Suitable shapes made by 3D or4D printing include, but are not limited to, for example, full orpartial spheres (e.g. ¾ or half spheres), rods, cubes, triangles orother geometrical or non-geometrical shapes.

3D printing techniques include, but are not limited to, microextrusionprinting, inkjet bioprinting, laser-assisted bioprinting,stereolithography, omnidirectional printing, and stamp printing.

In some embodiments, the nanoscale sensor elements are nanoparticles.Suitable nanoparticles are known in the art and include, but are notlimited to, for example, natural or synthetic polymers, copolymers,terpolymers (with the cores being composed of metals or inorganicoxides, including magnetic cores). Suitable polymeric nanoparticlesinclude, but are not limited to, e.g., polystyrene; poly(lysine),chitosan, dextran, poly(acrylamide) and its derivatives such asN-isopropylacrylamide, N-tertbutylacrylamide, N,N-dimethylacrylamide,polyethylene glycol, poly(vinyl alcohol), gelatin, starch, degradable(bio)polymers, silica and the like.

In various embodiments, the core of the nanoparticles can include anorganic particle, an inorganic particle, or a particle including bothorganic and inorganic materials. For example, the particles can have acore structure that is or includes a metal particle, a quantum dotparticle, a metal oxide particle, or a core-shell particle. For example,the core structure can be or include a polymeric particle or alipid-based particle, and the linkers can include a lipid, a surfactant,a polymer, a hydrocarbon chain, or an amphiphilic polymer. For example,the linkers can include polyethylene glycol or polyalkylene glycol,e.g., the first ends of the linkers can include a lipid bound topolyethelene glycol (PEG) and the second ends can include functionalgroups bound to the PEG. In these methods, the first or secondfunctional groups can include an amine group, a maleimide group, ahydroxyl group, a carboxyl group, a pyridylthiol group, or an azidegroup.

In certain embodiments, the nanoparticles can comprise polymers thatinclude, for example, a sodium polystyrene sulfonate (PSS), polyethyleneoxide (PEO), polyoxyethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol (PEG),polyethylene imine (PEI), polylactic acid, polycaprolactone,polyglycolic acid, poly(lactide-co-glycolide polymer (PLGA), celluloseether polymer, polyvinylpyrrolidone, vinyl acetate,polyvinylpyrrolidone-vinyl acetate copolymer, polyvinyl alcohol (PVA),acrylate, polyacrylic acid (PAA), vinyl acetate, crotonic acidcopolymers, polyacrylamide, polyethylene phosphonate, polybutenephosphonate, polystyrene, polyvinylphosphonate, polyalkylene, carboxyvinyl polymer, sodium alginate, carrageenan, xanthan gum, gum acacia,Arabic gum, guar gum, pullulan, agar, chitin, chitosan, pectin, karayagum, locust bean gum, maltodextrin, amylose, corn starch, potato starch,rice starch, tapioca starch, pea starch, sweet potato starch, barleystarch, wheat starch, hydroxypropylated high amylose starch, dextrin,levan, elsinan, gluten, collagen, whey protein isolate, casein, milkprotein, soy protein, keratin, or a gelatin, or a copolymer, derivative,or mixture thereof.

In other embodiments, the polymer can be or include a polyethylene,polycarbonate, polyanhydride, polyhydroxyacid, polypropylfumerate,polycaprolactone, polyamide, polyacetal, polyether, polyester,poly(orthoester), polycyanoacrylate, polyvinyl alcohol, polyurethane,polyphosphazene, polyacrylate, polymethacrylate, polycyanoacrylate,polyurea, polystyrene, or a polyamine, or a copolymer, derivative, ormixture thereof.

In some embodiments, the present disclosure provides nanoparticlescomprising biodegradable polymers. The non-limiting exemplarybiodegradable polymers can be poly-β-amino-esters (PBAEs), poly(amidoamines), polyesters including poly lactic-co-glycolic acid (PLGA),polyanhydrides, bioreducible polymers, and other biodegradable polymers.In some embodiments, the biodegradable polymer comprises2-(3-aminopropylamino)ethanol end-modified poly(1,4-butanedioldiacrylate-co-4-amino-1-butanol), (1-(3-aminopropyl)-4-methylpiperazineend-modified poly(1,4-butanediol diacrylate-co-4-amino-1-butanol),2-(3-aminopropylamino)ethanol end-modified poly(1,4-butanedioldiacrylate-co-5-amino-1-pentanol), (1-(3-aminopropyl)-4-methylpiperazineend-modified poly(1,4-butanediol diacrylate-co-5-amino-1-pentanol),2-(3-aminopropylamino) ethanol end-modified poly(1,5 pentanedioldiacrylate-co-3-amino-1-propanol), and(1-(3-aminopropyl)-4-methylpiperazine-end-modified poly(1,5 pentanedioldiacrylate-co-3-amino-1-propanol).

Array Substrates

In some embodiments, the sensor array comprises a substrate. Regardlessof the identity of the sensor element, this invention can be embodied bya matrix of sensor elements immobilized on, connected with and/orcoupled to a solid substrate. The substrate may comprise, consistessentially of or consist of polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), silica, goldor gold coated substrate, silver or silver coated substrate, platinum orplatinum coated substrate, zinc or zinc coated substrate, carbon coatedsubstrate and the like. One skilled in the art would be able to selectan appropriate substrate for the sensor array. In some embodiments, thesensor elements and the substrate are made of the same element, forexample, gold. In some embodiments, the substrate and sensor elements(e.g. nanoparticles) form a chip.

In some embodiments, the plurality of sensor elements comprises a singlesurface, plate or chip containing two or more discrete sensor elements(regions) with topological differences that allows for discretebiomolecule corona formation at each discrete element (region). Thesurface plate or chip may be fabricated to include the two or morediscrete elements (regions) by the methods described herein. Thediscrete regions may be raised surfaces of differing geometric shapes,differing sizes or differing charges or other topological differencesthat result in discrete sensor elements with ability to form discretebiomolecule coronas.

In some embodiments, the sensor elements are non-covalently attached tothe substrate. Suitable methods of non-covalent attachment are known inthe art and include, but are not limited to, for example, metalcoordination, charge interaction, hydrophobic-hydrophobic interaction,chelation and the like. In other embodiments, the sensor elements arecovalently attached to the substrate. Suitable methods of covalentlylinking the sensor elements and the substrates include, but are notlimited to, for example, click chemistry, irradiation, and the like.

For purposes of illustration only, methods of attaching the sensorelements, e.g. nanoscale sensor elements, to substrates is demonstratedin FIGS. 23-40. For example, sensor elements may be conjugated to asubstrate (e.g. silica substrate) via the amidation reaction between theamino groups on silica substrate surface and carboxylic acid groups onnanoparticle surface (FIG. 23), via the ring-opening reaction betweenthe epoxy groups on silica substrate surface and amino groups onnanoparticle surface (FIG. 24), via the Michael Addition reactionbetween the maleimide groups on silica substrate surface and thiol oramino groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 25), via the urethanereaction between the isocyanate groups on silica substrate surface andhydroxyl or amino groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 26), via theoxidation reaction between the thiol groups on silica substrate surfaceand the ones on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 27), via the “Click”chemistry between azide groups on silica substrate surface and alkynegroups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 28), via the thiol exchangereaction between 2-pyridyldithiol groups on silica substrate surface andthiol groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 29), via the coordinationreaction between boronic acid groups on silica substrate surface anddiol groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 30), via the UVlight-irradiated addition reaction between C═C bonds on substratesurface and C═C bonds on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 31) and the like.Suitable methods of conjugating sensor elements to gold substrate areknown in the art and include, for example, conjugation via Au-thiolbonds (FIG. 32), via the amidation reaction between the carboxylic acidgroups on gold substrate surface and the amino groups on nanoparticlesurface (FIG. 33), via “Click” chemistry between the azide groups ongold substrate surface and the alkyne groups on nanoparticle surface(FIG. 34), via urethane reaction between the NHS groups on goldsubstrate surface and the amino groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG.35), via the ring-opening reaction between the epoxy groups on goldsubstrate surface and amino groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 36),via the coordination reaction between boronic acid groups on silicasubstrate surface and diol groups on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 37), viathe UV light-irradiated addition reaction between C═C bonds on goldsubstrate surface and C═C bonds on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 38), viathe “Ligand-Receptor” interaction between biotin on gold substratesurface and avidin on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 39), via the“Host-Guest” interaction between a-cyclodextrin (a-CD) on gold substratesurface and adamantine (Ad) on nanoparticle surface (FIG. 40), and thelike.

In another example, so-called “click chemistry” can be used to attachthe functional surface groups to the core structures of thenanoparticles (see, e.g., the Sigma Aldrich catalog and U.S. Pat. No.7,375,234, which are both incorporated herein by reference in theirentireties). Of the reactions comprising the click chemistry field, oneexample is the Huisgen 1,3-dipolar cycloaddition of alkynes to azides toform 1,4-disubsituted-1,2,3-triazoles. The copper (I)-catalyzed reactionis mild and very efficient, requiring no protecting groups, andrequiring no purification in many cases. The azide and alkyne functionalgroups are generally inert to biological molecules and aqueousenvironments. The triazole has similarities to the ubiquitous amidemoiety found in nature, but unlike amides, is not susceptible tocleavage. Additionally, they are nearly impossible to oxidize or reduce.

The plurality of sensor elements may be attached to the substraterandomly or in a distinct pattern. The sensor elements may besubstantially uniformly positioned. The pattern of the arranged sensorelements may vary according to the pattern in which the sensor elementsare attached to the substrate. Each sensor element is separated by adistance. The distance between the sensor elements (e.g. nanoparticles)arranged on the substrate may vary depending on the length of the linkerused to attach or other fabrication conditions. According to variousembodiments, the plurality of sensor elements on the array can befabricated having a desired inter-element distance and pattern. Suitabledistinct patterns are known in the art, including, but not limited to,parallel lines, squares, circles, triangles and the like. Further, thesensor elements may be arranged in rows, or columns. In someembodiments, the substrate is a flat substrate, in other embodiments,the substrate is in the form of microchannels or nanochannels. Forillustrative purposes only, suitable embodiments are described in FIG.15-22. The sensor elements may be contained within microchannels ornanochannels that restrict or control the flow of the sample through thesensor array. Suitable microchannels can range from 10 μm to about 100μm in size.

In some embodiments, non-limiting examples of the plurality of sensorelements include, but are not limited to, (a) a plurality of sensorelements made of the same material but differing in physiochemicalproperties, (b) a plurality of sensor elements where one or more sensorelement is made of a different material with the same or differingphysiochemical properties, (c) a plurality of sensor elements made ofthe same material differing in size, (d) a plurality of sensor elementsmade of different material with relatively the same size; (e) aplurality of sensor elements made of different material and made ofdifferent sizes, (f) a plurality of sensor elements in which eachelement is made of a different material, (g) a plurality of sensorelements having different charges, among others. The plurality of sensorelements can be in any suitable combination of two or more sensorelements in which each sensor element provides a unique biomoleculecorona signature. For example, the plurality of sensor elements mayinclude one or more liposome and one or more nanoparticle describedherein. In one embodiment, the plurality of sensor elements can be aplurality of liposomes with varying lipid content and/or varying charges(cationic/anionic/neutral). In another embodiment, the plurality ofsensors may contain one or more nanoparticle made of the same materialbut of varying sizes and physiochemical properties. In anotherembodiment, the plurality of sensors may contain one or morenanoparticle made of differing materials (e.g. silica and polystyrene)with similar or varying sizes and/or physiochemical properties (e.g.modifications, for example, —NH₂, —COOH functionalization). Thesecombinations are purely provided as examples and are non-limiting to thescope of the invention.

The angle of curvature on the surface of the particles can changedepending on the size of the particles. This change in angle ofcurvature in turn changes the surface area to which proteins may attachand interact with each other on the particles. As shown in FIG. 58,increasing the size of the particle results in a change in the amount ofprotein bound and also in the pattern of proteins attached to thedifferent sized nanoparticles (in this example, the SDS-PAGE analysis ofproteins on nanoparticles of diameters of 0.1 μm, 3 μm and 4 μm areshown).

The novelty of the sensor array is it not only can detect differentproteins between the different sensor elements, but the ability tocompare the levels of the same protein between the different sensorelements. For example, not to be bound by any theory but in order toillustrate the uniqueness of the present sensory array, a theoreticalexample is described. In some embodiments, the sample is contacted witha first sensor element A, a second sensor element B, and a third sensorelement C, wherein each sensor element produces a distant protein coronasignature (i.e., A′, B′ and C′). The compositions of each protein coronasignature A′, B′ and C′ can be different from one another. In someembodiments, A′ B′ and C′ can comprise the same protein but in adifferent amount, which can provide additional proteomic information notobtainable by characterizing the sample with previously knownapproaches. In other words, each unique corona protein information fromeach nanoparticle serves as unique variables, and therefore providesmore data proteomics data. For example, albumin may be found in theprotein corona signature of only one sensor element A, in the signatureof two sensors, e.g. A and B, B and C or A and C, or in all three sensorbiomolecule signatures (A, B, C). Further, the sensor array does notjust determine the presence or absence of the protein, e.g., albumin,but it also can determine the comparison of the amount of the proteinfrom one sensor to the other. For example, albumin may be found atconcentration X in the signature of A, the concentration of ⅓× in sensorB and at a concentration of 2× in sensor C for a specific biomoleculefingerprint. In another biomolecule fingerprint, the same protein,albumin, could be found in 3 different concentrations, for example, ⅛×in sensor D, 3× in sensor E and ¼× in sensor F. Thus, a plurality ofsensors gives not only a data point for the concentration of a protein,but there can be a comparison of the concentration of the proteinbetween two or more sensors. Further, the concentration or rare orlow-abundant proteins can be compared to the concentration of a knownprotein providing further data regarding the protein coronas. Forexample, for illustrative purposes, the concentration of an unknownprotein, e.g. protein Z, may be compared to the amount of a knownprotein, e.g. albumin in the different biomolecule coronas. For example,Z may be found at a ratio to albumin of 1:8 on sensor A, 1:50 on sensorB, and not present on sensor C. FIG. 12 provides an analysis of thecomparison of rare proteins to albumin concentration within proteincoronas analyzed. Thus, statistical analysis can take both the presenceof a protein, the relative concentration between each sensor element,and the concentration of a rare or low-abundant protein as compared to aknown protein of a particular concentration when analyzing the data.

In some embodiments, a channel is formed by lithography, etching,embossing, or molding of a polymeric surface. In general, thefabrication process may involve one or more of any of these processes,and different parts of the array may be fabricated using differentmethods and assembled or bonded together.

Lithography involves use of light or other form of energy such aselectron beam to change a material. Typically, a polymeric material orprecursor (e.g. photoresist, a light-resistant material) is coated on asubstrate and is selectively exposed to light or other form of energy.Depending on the photoresist, exposed regions of the photoresist eitherremain or are dissolved in subsequent processing steps known generallyas “developing.” This process results in a pattern of the photoresist onthe substrate. In some embodiments, the photoresist is used as a masterin a molding process. In some embodiments, a polymeric precursor ispoured on the substrate with photoresist, polymerized (i.e. cured) andpeeled off.

In some embodiments, the photoresist is used as a mask for an etchingprocess. For example, after patterning photoresist on a siliconsubstrate, channels can be etched into the substrate using a deepreactive ion etch (DRIE) process or other chemical etching process knownin the art (e.g. plasma etch, KOH etch, HF etch, etc.). The photoresistis removed, and the substrate is bonded to another substrate using oneof any bonding procedures known in the art (e.g. anodic bonding,adhesive bonding, direct bonding, eutectic bonding, etc.). Multiplelithographic and etching steps and machining steps such as drilling maybe included as required.

In some embodiments, a polymeric substrate may be heated and pressedagainst a master mold for an embossing process. The master mold may beformed by a variety of processes, including lithography and machining.The polymeric substrate is then bonded with another substrate to formchannels and/or a mixing apparatus. Machining processes may be includedif necessary.

In some embodiments, a molten polymer or metal or alloy is injected intoa suitable mold and allowed to cool and solidify for an injectionmolding process. The mold typically consists of two parts that allow themolded component to be removed. Parts thus manufactured may be bonded toresult in the substrate.

In some embodiments, sacrificial etch may be used to form channels.Lithographic techniques may be used to pattern a material on asubstrate. This material is covered by another material of differentchemical nature. This material may undergo lithography and etchprocesses, or other machining process. The substrate is then exposed toa chemical agent that selectively removes the first material. Channelsare formed in the second material, leaving voids where the firstmaterial was present before the etch process.

In some embodiments, microchannels are directly machined into asubstrate by laser machining or CNC machining. Several layers thusmachined may be bonded together to obtain the final substrate.

In some embodiments, the width or height of each channel ranges fromapproximately 1 μm to approximately 1000 μm. In some embodiments, thewidth or height of each channel ranges from approximately 5 μm toapproximately 500 μm. In some embodiments, the width or height of eachchannel ranges from approximately 10 μm to approximately 100 μm. In someembodiments, the width or height of each channel a ranges fromapproximately 25 μm to approximately 100 μm. In some embodiments, thewidth or height of each channel ranges from approximately 50 μm toapproximately 100 μm. In some embodiments, the width or height of eachchannel ranges from approximately 75 μm to approximately 100 μm. In someembodiments, the width or height of each channel ranges fromapproximately 10 μm to approximately 75 μm. In some embodiments, thewidth or height of each channel ranges from approximately 10 μm toapproximately 50 μm. In some embodiments, the width or height of eachchannel ranges from approximately 10 μm to approximately 25 μm.

In some embodiments, the maximum width or height of a channel isapproximately 1 μm, approximately 5 μm, approximately 10 μm,approximately 20 μm, approximately 30 μm, approximately 40 μm,approximately 50 μm, approximately 60 nm, approximately 70 μm,approximately 80 μm, approximately 90 μm, approximately 100 μm,approximately 250 μm, approximately 500 μm, or approximately 1000 μm.

In some embodiments, the width of each channel ranges from approximately5 μm to approximately 100 μm. In some embodiments, the width of achannel is approximately 5 μm, approximately 10 μm, approximately 15 μm,approximately 20 μm, approximately 25 μm, approximately 30 μm,approximately 35 μm, approximately 40 nm, approximately 45 μm,approximately 50 μm, approximately 60 μm, approximately 70 μm,approximately 80 μm, approximately 90 μm, or approximately 100 μm.

In some embodiments, the height of each channel ranges fromapproximately 10 μm to approximately 1000 μm. In some embodiments, theheight of a channel is approximately 10 μm, approximately 100 μm,approximately 250 μm, approximately 400 μm, approximately 500 μm,approximately 600 μm, approximately 750 μm, or approximately 1000 μm. Inspecific embodiments, the height of the channel(s) through which thesample flows is approximately 500 μm. In specific embodiments, theheight of the channel(s) through which the sample flows is approximately500 μm.

In some embodiments, the length of each channel ranges fromapproximately 100 μm to approximately 10 cm. In some embodiments, thelength of a channel is approximately 100 μm, approximately 1.0 mm,approximately 10 mm, approximately 100 mm, approximately 500 mm,approximately 600 mm, approximately 700 mm, approximately 800 mm,approximately 900 mm, approximately 1.0 cm, approximately 1.1 cm,approximately 1.2 cm, approximately 1.3 cm, approximately 1.4 cm,approximately 1.5 cm, approximately 5 cm, or approximately 10 cm. Inspecific embodiments, the length of the channel(s) through which thesample flows is approximately 1.0 cm. In specific embodiments, thelength of the channel(s) through which the sample flows is approximately1.0 cm.

Biomolecule Corona Nanosystem

Provided herein is biomolecule corona nanosystem or sensor arrayscomprising, consisting essentially of or consists of a plurality ofsensor elements wherein the plurality of sensor elements differ fromeach other in at least one physiocochemical property. In someembodiments, a plurality of sensor elements are a plurality ofnanoparticles. In some embodiments, a plurality of nanoparticles are aplurality of liposomes. In some embodiments, each sensor element is ableto bind a plurality of biomolecules in a complex biological sample toproduce a biomolecule corona signature. In some embodiments, each sensorelements has a distinct biomolecule corona signature.

The biomolecule corona signature refers to the composition, signature orpattern of different biomolecules that are bound to each separate sensorelement or each nanoparticle. In some cases, the biomolecule coronasignature is a protein corona signature. In another case, thebiomolecule corona signature is a polysaccharide corona signature. Inyet another case, the biomolecule corona signature is a metabolitecorona signature. In some cases, the biomolecule corona signature is alipidomic corona signature. The signature not only refers to thedifferent biomolecules but also the differences in the amount, level orquantity of the biomolecule bound to the sensor element or thenanoparticle, or differences in the conformational state of thebiomolecule that is bound to the sensor element or the nanoparticle. Itis contemplated that the biomolecule corona signatures of each sensorelements may contain some of the same biomolecules, may contain distinctbiomolecules with regard to the other sensor elements or nanoparticles,and/or may differ in level or quantity, type or confirmation of thebiomolecule. The biomolecule corona signature may depend on not only thephysiocochemical properties of the sensor element or the nanoparticle,but also the nature of the sample and the duration of exposure. In someembodiments, the biomolecule corona signature comprises the biomoleculesfound in a soft corona and a hard corona.

In some embodiments, the sensor array comprises, consists essentially ofor consists of a first sensor element that produces a first biomoleculecorona signature and at least one second sensor element or at least onenanoparticle that produces at least one second biomolecule coronasignature when the sensor array is contacted with a complex biologicalsample. A biomolecule fingerprint is the combination of the firstbiomolecule signature and the at least one second biomolecule signature.It is contemplated that the biomolecule signature can be made from atleast two biomolecule corona signatures to as many different biomoleculesignatures are assayed, e.g. at least 1000 different biomolecule coronasignatures. The biomolecule corona can be assayed separately for eachsensor element to determine the biomolecule corona signature for eachelement each nanoparticle, or each liposome and combined to determinethe biomolecule fingerprint or the two or more biomolecule corona can beassayed at the same time to develop the biomolecule fingerprint at once.

The biomolecule fingerprint can distinguish between different possiblebiological states (e.g., disease states) of a subject. In someembodiments, the biomolecule fingerprint is associated with thedevelopment of a disease or disorder and/or is able associated with adisease state of the subject.

In some embodiments, the biomolecule fingerprint is able to determine adisease state for a subject. The term “disease state” for a subject asused herein refers to the ability of sensor array of the presenttechnology to be able to differentiate between the different states of adisease within a subject. This term encompasses a pre-disease state orprecursor state of a disease or disorder (a state in which the subjectmay not have any outward signs or symptoms of the disease or disorderbut will develop the disease or disorder in the future) and a diseasestate in which the subject has a stage of the disease or disorder (e.g.,an early, intermediate or late stage of the disease or disorder). Inother words, the disease state is a spectrum that encompasses acontinuum regarding the health of a subject with respect to a disease ordisorder. The array of the present invention is able to distinguishdifferent diseases states for a subject by determining a biomoleculefingerprint which can be compared to differing biomolecule fingerprintsthat are associated with different disease states on the spectrum and tohealthy subjects. In another example, the biomolecule fingerprint may beassociated with a pre-disease state or precursor disease state, in whichthe subject appears healthy at the time with no outward signs orsymptoms of a disease, but will develop the disease in the future. Inanother example, the biomolecule fingerprint may indicate that thesubject has the disease, and is able to distinguish if the disease is inthe early, intermediate or late stages by the unique biomoleculefingerprint associated with each stage.

As discussed above, the disease state also includes a precursor state ofa disease or disorder. This precursor state is a state in which thesubject does not have any outward signs or symptoms of the disease ordisorder (although there may be submacro changes within the biomoleculesof the subject found in their blood or other biological fluids) but willdevelop the disease or disorder in the future. This precursor state canalso be described as a state in which the first pathological changes ofa disease are seen, e.g. changes in the biomolecule fingerprint of abiological sample from the patient.

Another example of a biological state is a healthy, non-disease state.The array can also determine a specific biomolecule fingerprintassociated with a healthy, non-disease state, where the subject will notdevelop the disease in the future. In this case, the subject has noevidence at the time of the test that they either have the disease orwill develop the disease in the future.

Herein the term “biological state” encompasses any biologicalcharacteristic of a subject which can be manifested in a biologicalsample as defined herein. A biological state can be detected using themethods disclosed herein where two subjects who differ in the biologicalstate manifest those differences in the composition of a sample. Forexample, a biological state includes a disease state of a subject. Adisease state can be detected when the disease state gives rise tochanges in the molecular composition (e.g., level of one or moreproteins) of a sample of a subject expressing the disease state relativeto a sample of a subject not having the disease state (i.e., where thebiological state is a healthy state or non-disease state).

Another example of a biological state is a level of responsiveness of asubject to a particular therapeutic treatment (e.g. administration ofone or a combination of drugs or pharmaceuticals). In some embodiments,a biological state is responsiveness (e.g., with respect to a particularthreshold of analysis) of a subject to a particular drug. In anotherembodiment, a biological state is non-responsiveness (e.g., with respectto a particular threshold of analysis) of a subject to a particulardrug. In some embodiments, the level of responsiveness of a subject to adrug (i.e., biological state of responsiveness to the drug or biologicalstate of non-responsiveness to the drug) is associated with factors suchas variability in metabolism or pharmacokinetics of the drug betweensubjects.

Another example of a biological state is the level of immune responseexhibited by a subject. In some embodiments, the biological state can beincreased immune response. In other embodiments, the biological statecan be decreased immune response. Immune response can differ betweensubjects as a result of a number of variables. For example, immuneresponse can differ between subjects as a result of differing exposureto an exogenously introduced antigen (e.g. associated with a virus orbacteria), as a result of differences in their susceptibility to anautoimmune disease or disorder, or secondarily as a result of a responseto other biological states in a subject (e.g., disease states such ascancer).

Other examples of biological states that can be associated with abiomolecule fingerprint include susceptibility of a subject to adverseeffects associated with administration of a drug, and identification ofa subject's potential to exhibit an allergic reaction to administrationof a particular composition or substance.

The innovation in this sensor arrays and associated methods differ fromthe current methods of detecting or measuring the presence or absence orlevels of certain biomarkers to predict if a subject may have apre-disposition or likelihood of developing a disease or disorder at avery early stages of the disease, before any signs or symptoms can bemonitored can be assayed. Suitably, the array is able to differentiatethe health of the subject from no disease or disorder, having aprecursor of a disease or disorder, and having the disease or disorder.However, the invention is not limited to those embodiments and coversthe spectrum of other disease states that may occur within the continuumof health and disease of a subject.

Further, the innovation of the present invention sensor arrays can bedemonstrated by the following examples. The sensor array of the presentinvention is very sensitive and able to detect not only changes in smallamounts of biomolecules within a sample, but rely on the interactionsbetween the biomolecules. For example, not to be bound by any theory butin order to illustrate the uniqueness of the present sensory array, atheoretical example is described. If, for example, biological samplesare collected from a subject over time (e.g., before any signs andsymptoms of the disease, pre-disease state and during early andintermediate stages of a disease). In these samples, by just measuring alevel of a biomolecule X in the sample (e.g. quantitation of amount) itmay be found that the concentration does not alter over the differentdisease states. Thus, measuring biomolecule X would not be a usefulmarker for the disease However, using the present sensor array, althoughthe level of biomarker X may be the same, the interaction of biomoleculeX with other biomolecules, Y and Z, may change the composition of theprotein corona signature associated with the sample over time andsamples. For example, biomarker X may change its association fromassociating with biomolecule Y to biomolecule Z, or over timeinteraction of X with Y and Z leads to a conformational change in X.This type of changes, that does not change the overall concentration butwill change the unique biomolecule fingerprint associated with thedisease state (that includes biomolecule X) would allow for thedistinction and association with other disease states. This would not bediscovered if you use methods of the art of just measuring thequantitation of biomolecule X within the sample, as this level stayedthe same throughout the entire disease. This is an unexpectedly highlyspecific and useful assay not seen before. With this assay, biomarkersof a disease that would not previously been characterized as biomarkerscan be determined including, patterns of biomarkers, as these marker maynot change in absolute amounts within the samples, but will have aconsistent and measurable change with regard to the interaction with thesensor elements in the sensor array. The ability to distinguish patternsby analysis of the biomolecule corona allows for the ability toassociate these patterns with different disease states.

As discussed above, the present sensor array has the ability to detectproteins over ten order of magnitude, which is a higher sensitivity thanany previously described methods. The uniqueness of the present sensorarray is found in the ability of the array to detect proteins regardlessof the level of concentration within the sample. The assay relies on theability of the biomolecule (e.g. protein), known or unknown, within thesample to interact with the sensor elements, and to interact differentlyand at different amounts with different sensor elements and also tointeract with the other biomolecules associated with the sensor element.This in turn, allows for there to be the ability to detect low-abundanceand rare proteins even in the presence of high abundant proteins (suchas albumin) within the sample. As demonstrated in FIG. 12 of Example 1,the ability of the senor array to detect concentrations over 10 order ofmagnitude even in the presence of high abundant proteins has been shown.Further, the sensor array is also able to detect proteins withunknown/unreported plasma concentrations, which previously have not beenfound with current methods. One unique feature among others of thepresent sensor array is the ability of the present system to be able todetect low-abundant proteins and rare proteins. The present sensor arraycan be used to not only determine a disease state (no disease,pre-disease, or early and late stage disease) but in some cases todistinguish between subtypes of diseases (e.g. distinguish betweendifferent types of cancer, e.g. lung cancer, breast cancer, myeloma,etc).

Detection Methods

The present sensor array may be used in a variety of methods describedherein. The ability to determine a unique biomolecule fingerprint forsamples provides a novel and innovative means to measure a specificdisease state in a subject. These biomolecule fingerprints can be usedto determine the disease state of a subject, diagnosing or prognosing adisease in a subject or identifying unique patterns of biomarkers thatare associated with a disease state or a disease or disorder. Forexample, the changes in the biomolecule fingerprint in a subject overtime (days, months, years) allows for the ability to track a disease ordisorder in a subject (e.g. disease state) which may be broadlyapplicable to determination of a biomolecule fingerprint that can beassociated with the early stage of a disease or any other disease state.As discussed above, the ability to detect a disease early on, forexample cancer, even before it fully develops or metastasizes allows fora significant increase in positive outcomes for those patients and theability to increase life expectancy and lower mortality associated withthat disease. Therefore, the sensor array of the present inventionprovides a unique opportunity to be able to develop biomoleculefingerprints associated with the pre-stages or precursor states of thedisease.

It is understood that even before a disease has progressed into showingany measurable signs or symptoms, that at the macroscopic level, thereare changes taking place within the body and biological systems of asubject. Being able to recognize these early pre-disease signscontemplated by use of the sensor array of the present invention. Theinventors have found that by comparing the biomolecule fingerprint of asubject during different times of a disease state (e.g. before a diseasehas shown symptoms and developed, after early signs or symptoms of thedisease, and/or at late stages of the disease) provides a uniquebiomolecule fingerprint linked to the different disease states linked tothe disease progression. In other words, a biomolecule fingerprint canbe determined that would allow one to be able to identify subjects thatare going to develop a disease at a later time. This would allow forearly monitoring and early treatment, greatly improving the outcome ofthe subject diagnosed with the disease.

In some embodiments, a method of detecting a disease or disorder in asubject are provided. The method comprises the steps of (a) obtaining asample from the subject; (b) contacting the sample with a sensor arrayas described herein, and (c) determining a biomolecule fingerprintassociated with the sample, wherein the biomolecule fingerprintdifferentiates the health of subject in a disease state, for example,from no disease or disorder, having a precursor of a disease ordisorder, and having disease or disorder.

The step of determining a biomolecule fingerprint associated with thesample may comprise detecting the biomolecule corona signature for atleast two sensor elements, wherein the combination of the at least twobiomolecule corona signatures produces the biomolecule fingerprint. Insome embodiments, the biomolecule corona signatures of the at least twosensor elements are assayed separately and the results combined todetermine the biomolecule fingerprint. In some embodiments thebiomolecule corona signatures of the at least two elements are assayedat the same time or in the same sample.

In some embodiments, the method of determining the biomoleculefingerprint comprises detecting and determining the biomolecular coronasignatures of the at least two sensor elements. In some embodiments,this step can be done by separating the plurality of biomoleculesattached to each sensor element (e.g. separating the biomolecule coronafrom the sensor element) and assaying the plurality of biomolecules todetermine the composition of the plurality of biomolecule coronas todetermine a biomolecule fingerprint. Depending on the design of thearray, in some instances the composition of each biomolecule coronasignature of each sensor element is assayed independently, and theresults are combined to produce the biomolecule fingerprint (e.g. eachsensor element is in a separate channel or compartment wherein thespecific composition of the biomolecule corona for that specific sensorelement can be separately analyzed (e.g. either by detaching thebiomolecules and assaying by mass spectrometry and/or chromatography orby detecting the plurality of biomolecules still attached to the sensorelement by fluorescence, luminescence or other means). In anotherembodiment, the at least two sensor elements are on the same array andthe composition of the biomolecule corona for the at least two sensorelements is assayed at the same time by dissociating the biomoleculecorona from both sensor elements into one solution and assaying thatsolution to determining a biomolecule signature. This later method wouldbe the method of choice if using a chip array technology.

Methods of assaying the plurality of biomolecules that make up thebiomolecule corona signature or the biomolecule fingerprint are known inthe art and include, but are not limited to, for example,gel-electrophoresis, liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, nuclearmagnetic resonance spectroscopy (NMR), fourier transform infraredspectroscopy (FTIR), circular dichroism, Raman spectrometry, and acombination thereof. In a preferred embodiment, the assay is by liquidchromatography, mass spectrometry or a combination thereof.

In a preferred embodiment, the sensor assay is a non-label array.

In some embodiments, it is contemplated that labelled arrays may beused, wherein a corona signature is able to be determined as a change issignal (e.g. fluorescence, luminescence, charge, colormetric dyes).Suitable example is shown in FIGS. 42 and 43. For example, an array mayinclude chemically responsive colorants in a printable formulation fordetection and identification of biomolecules based on the equilibriuminteractions with the biomolecules and responsive dyes.

In some embodiments, the sensor element comprises a complex with a firstcomponent and a polymer fluorophore or other quencher componentchemically complementary to the first component where such a complexhaving an initial background or reference fluorescence. Once the firstcomponent comes into contact with the biomolecule corona, it will affectthe quenching of the fluorophore and this change in fluorescence can bemeasured. After the sensor is irradiated and/or excited with a laser,the effect and/or change in fluorescence for each sensor element can bemeasured and compared to the background fluorescence to produce thebiomolecule fingerprint.

The sensor arrays and methods described herein can be used to determinea disease state, and/or prognose or diagnose a disease or disorder. Thediseases or disorders contemplated include, but are not limited to, forexample, cancer, cardiovascular disease, endocrine disease, inflammatorydisease, a neurological disease and the like.

In one embodiment, the disease or disorder is cancer. In suitableembodiments, the sensor array and methods described herein is not onlyable to diagnose cancer (e.g. determine if a subject (a) does not havecancer, (b) is in a pre-cancer development stage, (c) is in early stageof cancer, (d) is in a late stage of cancer) but in some embodiments isable to determine the type of cancer. As demonstrated in the examplesbelow, a sensor array comprising six sensor elements was able toaccurately determine the disease state of the presence or absence ofcancer. Additionally, the Examples demonstrate that a sensor arraycomprising six sensor elements was able to distinguish between differentcancer types (e.g. lung cancer, glioblastoma, meningioma, myeloma andpancreatic cancer).

The term “cancer” and “tumor” as used herein interchangeably and aremeant to encompass any cancer, neoplastic and preneoplastic disease thatis characterized by abnormal growth of cells. Cancer may, for example,be selected from the group consisting of lung cancer, pancreas cancer,myeloma, myeloid leukemia, meningioma, glioblastoma, breast cancer,esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, gastric adenocarcinoma, prostatecancer, bladder cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroid cancer, neuroendocrinecancer, colon carcinoma, ovarian cancer, head and neck cancer, Hodgkin'sDisease, non-Hodgkin's lymphomas, rectum cancer, urinary cancers,uterine cancers, oral cancers, skin cancers, stomach cancer, braintumors, liver cancer, laryngeal cancer, esophageal cancer, mammarytumors, fibrosarcoma, myxosarcoma, liposarcoma, chondrosarcoma,osteogenic sarcoma, chordoma, angiosarcoma, endotheliosarcoma, Ewing'ssarcoma, squamous cell carcinoma, basal cell carcinoma, adenocarcinoma,sweat gland carcinoma, sebaceous gland carcinoma, papillary carcinoma,papillary adenocarcinomas, cystandeocarcinoma, medullary carcinoma,bronchogenic carcinoma, renal cell carcinoma, hepatoma, bile ductcarcinoma, choriocarcinoma, seminoma, embryonal carcinoma, Wilms' tumor,cervical cancer, testicular tumor, endometrial cancer, lung carcinoma,small cell lung carcinoma, bladder carcinoma, epithelial carcinoma,glioblastomas, neuronomas, craniopharingiomas, schwannomas, glioma,astrocytoma, meningioma, melanoma, neuroblastoma, retinoblastoma,leukemias and lymphomas, acute lymphocytic leukemia and acute myelocyticpolycythemia vera, multiple myeloma, Waldenstrom's macroglobulinemia,and heavy chain disease, acute nonlymphocytic leukemias, chroniclymphocytic leukemia, chronic myelogenous leukemia, childhood-null acutelymphoid leukemia (ALL), thymic ALL, B-cell ALL, acute megakaryocyticleukemia, Burkitt's lymphoma, and T cell leukemia, small and largenon-small cell lung carcinoma, acute granulocytic leukemia, germ celltumors, endometrial cancer, gastric cancer, hairy cell leukemia, thyroidcancer and other cancers known in the art. In a preferred embodiment,the cancer is selected from the group consisting of lung cancer,pancreas cancer, myeloma, myeloid leukemia, meningioma, glioblastoma,breast cancer, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, gastricadenocarcinoma, prostate cancer, bladder cancer, ovarian cancer, thyroidcancer, and neuroendocrine cancer.

As used herein, the terms “cardiovascular disease” (CVD) or“cardiovascular disorder” are used to classify numerous conditionsaffecting the heart, heart valves, and vasculature (e.g., veins andarteries) of the body and encompasses diseases and conditions including,but not limited to atherosclerosis, myocardial infarction, acutecoronary syndrome, angina, congestive heart failure, aortic aneurysm,aortic dissection, iliac or femoral aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, atrialfibrillation, stroke, transient ischemic attack, systolic dysfunction,diastolic dysfunction, myocarditis, atrial tachycardia, ventricularfibrillation, endocarditis, peripheral vascular disease, and coronaryartery disease (CAD). Further, the term cardiovascular disease refers tosubjects that ultimately have a cardiovascular event or cardiovascularcomplication, referring to the manifestation of an adverse condition ina subject brought on by cardiovascular disease, such as sudden cardiacdeath or acute coronary syndrome, including, but not limited to,myocardial infarction, unstable angina, aneurysm, stroke, heart failure,non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, angina pectoris, transientischemic attacks, aortic aneurysm, aortic dissection, cardiomyopathy,abnormal cardiac catheterization, abnormal cardiac imaging, stent orgraft revascularization, risk of experiencing an abnormal stress test,risk of experiencing abnormal myocardial perfusion, and death.

As used herein, the ability to detect, diagnose or prognosecardiovascular disease, for example, atherosclerosis, can includedetermining if the patient is in a pre-stage of cardiovascular disease,has developed early, moderate or severe forms of cardiovascular disease,or has suffered one or more cardiovascular event or complicationassociated with cardiovascular disease.

Atherosclerosis (also known as arteriosclerotic vascular disease orASVD) is a cardiovascular disease in which an artery-wall thickens as aresult of invasion and accumulation and deposition of arterial plaquescontaining white blood cells on the innermost layer of the walls ofarteries resulting in the narrowing and hardening of the arteries. Thearterial plaque is an accumulation of macrophage cells or debris, andcontains lipids (cholesterol and fatty acids), calcium and a variableamount of fibrous connective tissue. Diseases associated withatherosclerosis include, but are not limited to, atherothrombosis,coronary heart disease, deep venous thrombosis, carotid artery disease,angina pectoris, peripheral arterial disease, chronic kidney disease,acute coronary syndrome, vascular stenosis, myocardial infarction,aneurysm or stroke.

For illustrative purposes, in one embodiment the sensor arrays maydistinguish the different stages of atherosclerosis, including, but notlimited to, the different degrees of stenosis in a subject.

Further, for illustrative purposes only, the examples below demonstratethe use of a sensor array to detect the different state of coronaryartery disease. A sensor array containing six sensor elements was ableto distinguish subjects with CAD as diagnosed by coronary angiography,patients with symptoms that had healthy coronary vessels (NO CAD),patients with restenosis (reoccurrence of CAD after treatment) andhealthy subjects with no risk factors (FIG. 53). The present sensorarray was sensitive enough to detect the difference between people whoad symptoms of coronary artery disease but did not have stenosis of thearteries (e.g. NO CAD vs CAD groups). This provides a novel diagnosticCAD test that can be used as a non-invasive screening for at riskpatients.

The term “endocrine disease” is used to refer to a disorder associatedwith dysregulation of endocrine system of a subject. Endocrine diseasesmay result from a gland producing too much or too little of an endocrinehormone causing a hormonal imbalance, or due to the development oflesions (such as nodules or tumors) in the endocrine system, which mayor may not affect hormone levels. Suitable endocrine diseases able to betreated include, but are not limited to, e.g., Acromegaly, Addison'sDisease, Adrenal Cancer, Adrenal Disorders, Anaplastic Thyroid Cancer,Cushing's Syndrome, De Quervain's Thyroiditis, Diabetes, FollicularThyroid Cancer, Gestational Diabetes, Goiters, Graves' Disease, GrowthDisorders, Growth Hormone Deficiency, Hashimoto's Thyroiditis, HurthleCell Thyroid Cancer, Hyperglycemia, Hyperparathyroidism,Hyperthyroidism, Hypoglycemia, Hypoparathyroidism, Hypothyroidism, LowTestosterone, Medullary Thyroid Cancer, MEN 1, MEN 2A, MEN 2B,Menopause, Metabolic Syndrome, Obesity, Osteoporosis, Papillary ThyroidCancer, Parathyroid Diseases, Pheochromocytoma, Pituitary Disorders,Pituitary Tumors, Polycystic Ovary Syndrome, Prediabetes, Silent,Thyroiditis, Thyroid Cancer, Thyroid Diseases, Thyroid Nodules,Thyroiditis, Turner Syndrome, Type 1 Diabetes, Type 2 Diabetes, and thelike.

As referred to herein, inflammatory disease refers to a disease causedby uncontrolled inflammation in the body of a subject. Inflammation is abiological response of the subject to a harmful stimulus which may beexternal or internal such as pathogens, necrosed cells and tissues,irritants etc. However, when the inflammatory response becomes abnormal,it results in self-tissue injury and may lead to various diseases anddisorders. Inflammatory diseases can include, but are not limited to,asthma, glomerulonephritis, inflammatory bowel disease, rheumatoidarthritis, hypersensitivities, pelvic inflammatory disease, autoimmunediseases, arthritis; necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), gastroenteritis,pelvic inflammatory disease (PID), emphysema, pleurisy, pyelitis,pharyngitis, angina, acne vulgaris, urinary tract infection,appendicitis, bursitis, colitis, cystitis, dermatitis, phlebitis,rhinitis, tendonitis, tonsillitis, vasculitis, autoimmune diseases;celiac disease; chronic prostatitis, hypersensitivities, reperfusioninjury; sarcoidosis, transplant rejection, vasculitis, interstitialcystitis, hay fever, periodontitis, atherosclerosis, psoriasis,ankylosing spondylitis, juvenile idiopathic arthritis, Behcet's disease,spondyloarthritis, uveitis, systemic lupus erythematosus, and cancer.For example, the arthritis includes rheumatoid arthritis, psoriaticarthritis, osteoarthritis or juvenile idiopathic arthritis, and thelike.

Neurological disorders or neurological diseases are used interchangeablyand refer to diseases of the brain, spine and the nerves that connectthem. Neurological diseases include, but are not limited to, braintumors, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, ALS,arteriovenous malformation, cerebrovascular disease, brain aneurysms,epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, Peripheral Neuropathy, Post-HerpeticNeuralgia, stroke, frontotemporal dementia, demyelinating disease(including but are not limited to, multiple sclerosis, Devic's disease(i.e. neuromyelitis optica), central pontine myelinolysis, progressivemultifocal leukoencephalopathy, leukodystrophies, Guillain-Barresyndrome, progressing inflammatory neuropathy, Charcot-Marie-Toothdisease, chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy, and anti-MAGperipheral neuropathy) and the like. Neurological disorders also includeimmune-mediated neurological disorders (IMNDs), which include diseaseswith at least one component of the immune system reacts against hostproteins present in the central or peripheral nervous system andcontributes to disease pathology. IMNDs may include, but are not limitedto, demyelinating disease, paraneoplastic neurological syndromes,immune-mediated encephalomyelitis, immune-mediated autonomic neuropathy,myasthenia gravis, autoantibody-associated encephalopathy, and acutedisseminated encephalomyelitis.

In a non-limiting example, the Examples below provide a method ofdiagnosing Alzheimer's in a patient using the sensor array and methodsdescribed herein. The sensor array was not only able to accuratelydistinguish between patients with or without Alzheimer's disease, butwas also able to detect patients who were pre-symptomatic and developedAlzheimer's disease several years after the screening (as determined bycohort plasmas). This provides advantages of being able to treat adisease at a very early stage, even before development of the disease.

The sensor arrays and methods of the present invention in someembodiments are able to detect a pre-disease stage of a disease ordisorder. A pre-disease stage is a stage at which the patient has notdeveloped any signs or symptoms of the disease. A pre-cancerous stagewould be a stage in which cancer or tumor or cancerous cells have not beidentified within the subject. A pre-neurological disease stage would bea stage in which a person has not developed one or more symptom of theneurological disease. The ability to diagnose a disease before one ormore sign or symptom of the disease is present allows for closemonitoring of the subject and the ability to treat the disease at a veryearly stage, increasing the prospect of being able to halt progressionor reduce the severity of the disease.

The sensor arrays and methods of the present invention in someembodiments are able to detect the early stages of a disease ordisorder. Early stages of the disease refers to when the first signs orsymptoms of a disease may manifest within a subject. Usually diseasesable to be caught in either pre-disease development or in the earlystates are easier to treat and provide a more positive outcome for thepatient. For example, for cancer, the early stages of a disease mayinclude stage 0 and stage 1 cancer. Stage 0 cancer describes the cancerin situ, which means “in place” signifying that the cancer is stilllocated in the place it started and have not spread to nearby tissues.This stage of cancer is often highly curable, usually by removing theentire tumor with surgery. Stage 1 cancer is usually a small cancer ortumor that has not grown deeply into nearby tissue and has not spread tolymph nodes or other parts of the body. Further, early stage of adisease may be a stage at which there are no outward signs or symptoms.For example, in Alzheimer's disease an early stage may be apre-Alzheimer's stage in which no symptoms are detected yet the patientwill develop Alzheimer's months or years later.

In some embodiments, the sensor arrays and methods are able to detectintermediate stages of the disease. Intermediate states of the diseasedescribe stages of the disease that have passed the first signs andsymptoms and the patient is experiencing one or more symptom of thedisease. For example, for cancer, stage II or III cancers are consideredintermediate stages, indicating larger cancers or tumors that have grownmore deeply into nearby tissue. In some instances, stage II or IIIcancers may have also spread to lymph nodes but not to other parts ofthe body.

Further, the sensor arrays and methods are able to detect late oradvanced stages of the disease. Late or advanced stages of the diseasemay also be called “severe” or “advanced” and usually indicates that thesubject is suffering from multiple symptoms and effects of the disease.For example, severe stage cancer includes stage IV, where the cancer hasspread to other organs or parts of the body and is sometimes referred toas advanced or metastatic cancer.

In some embodiments, the methods of the present technology includecomparing the protein fingerprint of the sample to a panel of proteinfingerprints associated with a plurality of diseases and/or a pluralityof disease states to determine if the sample indicates a disease and/ordisease state. For example, samples can be collected from a populationof subjects over time. Once the subjects develop a disease or disorder,the present invention allows for the ability to characterize and detectthe changes in biomolecule fingerprints over time in the subject bycomparing the biomolecule fingerprint of the sample from the samesubject before they have developed a disease to the biomoleculefingerprint of the subject after they have developed the disease. Insome embodiments, samples can be taken from cohorts of patients who alldevelop the same disease, allowing for analysis and characterization ofthe biomolecule fingerprints that are associated with the differentstages of the disease for these patients (e.g. from pre-disease todisease states).

For illustrative purposes only, the examples have shown that the methodsand sensor arrays of the present invention are able to distinguish notonly between different types of cancers, but also between the differentstages of the cancer (e.g. early stages of cancer).

Methods of determining a biomolecule fingerprint associated with atleast one disease or disorder and/or a disease state are contemplated.The methods comprise the steps of obtaining a sample from at least twosubjects diagnosed with the at least one disease or disorder or havingthe same disease state; contacting each sample with a sensor arraydescribed herein to determining a biomolecule fingerprint for eachsensor array, and analyzing the fingerprint of the at least two samplesto determine a biomolecule fingerprint associated with the at least onedisease or disorder and/or disease state.

Classification of Biomolecule Corona

The method of determining the biomolecule fingerprint associated withthe disease or disorder and/or disease state include the analysis of thebiomolecule fingerprints of the at least two samples. Thisdetermination, analysis or statistical classification is done by methodsknown in the art, including, but not limited to, for example, a widevariety of supervised and unsupervised data analysis, machine learning,deep learning, and clustering approaches including hierarchical clusteranalysis (HCA), principal component analysis (PCA), Partial leastsquares Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA), random forest, logisticregression, decision trees, support vector machine (SVM), k-nearestneighbors, naive bayes, linear regression, polynomial regression, SVMfor regression, K-means clustering, and hidden Markov models, amongothers. In other words, the biomolecule fingerprint of each sample arecompared/analyzed with each other to determine with statisticalsignificance what patterns are common between the individualfingerprints to determine a biomolecule fingerprint that is associatedwith the disease or disorder or disease state.

Generally, machine learning algorithms are used to construct models thataccurately assign class labels to examples based on the input featuresthat describe the example. In some case it may be advantageous to employmachine learning and/or deep learning approaches for the methodsdescribed herein. For example, machine learning can be used to associatethe biomolecule fingerprint with various disease states (e.g. nodisease, precursor to a disease, having early or late stage of thedisease, etc.). For example, in some cases, one or more machine learningalgorithms are employed in connection with a method of the invention toanalyze data detected and obtained by the biomolecule corona andbiomolecule fingerprints derived therefrom. For example, in oneembodiment, machine learning can be coupled with the sensor arraydescribed herein to determine not only if a subject has a pre-stage ofcancer, cancer or does not have or develop cancer, but also todistinguish the type of cancer.

The Examples below have shown the ability of the sensor array describedherein to determine the disease state for a number of differentdiseases, including, cancer, cardiovascular disease and neurologicaldisease (e.g. Alzheimer's disease) with statistical significance. Thisassay is not limited to these specific embodiments, as the sensor arraycan be applied to a variety of diseases and disease states as describedherein.

In some embodiments, the method includes obtaining samples from controlsubjects which are contacted with the sensor array to produce a controlbiomolecule fingerprint. These control biomolecule fingerprints can thenbe used to compare to the biomolecule fingerprints of the subjects witha disease or disorder and/or specific disease state to determine abiomolecule fingerprint specific to that disease or disorder and/orspecific disease state.

The method may include, for example, obtaining control sample from atleast one control subject, contacting the control sample with the sensorarray to produce a plurality of control biomolecule corona, and assayingthe plurality of biomolecules of each control biomolecule corona. Themethod may further comprise comparing the plurality of biomolecules ofthe plurality of control biomolecule corona with the plurality ofbiomolecules of the plurality of biomolecule corona from the subjectwith the disease or disorder to determine a biomolecule fingerprintassociated with the at least one disease or disorder.

Methods of diagnosing or prognosing a disease or disorder are alsocontemplated. The methods comprise obtaining a sample from a subject;contacting the sample with a sensor array to produce a biomoleculefingerprint, and comparing the biomolecule fingerprint to a panel ofbiomolecule fingerprints associated with a plurality of diseases ordisorders; and diagnosing or prognosing the disease or disorder.

In some embodiments, methods of identifying patterns of biomarkers orspecific biomarkers associated with a disease or disorder arecontemplated. Suitable methods, include, for example, preforming themethods described above (e.g. obtaining a samples from at least twosubjects diagnosed with the disease or disorder and at least two controlsubjects; contacting each sample with the sensor array to produce abiomolecule fingerprint, and comparing the biomolecule fingerprint ofthe subjects with the disease or disorder to the biomolecule fingerprintof the control subjects to determine at least one pattern and/orbiomarker associated with the disease or disorder. Suitable, the methodmay comprise at least 2 disease subjects and at least two controlsubjects, alternatively at least 5 disease subjects and at least 5control subjects, alternatively at least 10 disease subjects and atleast 10 control subjects, alternatively at least 15 disease subjectsand at least 15 control subjects, alternatively at least 20 diseasesubjects and at least 20 control subjects, and includes any variationsin between (e.g. disease subjects from at least 2-100, and controlsubjects from at least 2-100).

In some embodiments, the arrays and methods allow for the determinationof a pattern of biomarkers associated with the disease state or diseaseor disorder or, in some embodiments, specific biomarkers that areassociated with the disease or disorder. Not only will biomarkers thatmay be associated with a disease state be able to be identified, forexample, biomarkers listed herein, but new biomarkers or patterns ofbiomarkers that may be associated with a disease state or a disease ordisorder may be determined. As discussed above, some biomarkers orpatterns of biomarkers for a specific disease or disorder may be achange in a biomolecule associated with the sensor array of the presentinvention and differ from what is usually referred to as biomarkers inthe art, e.g., and increase expression of a specific biomoleculeassociated with a disease. As discussed above, it may be the interactionof a biomolecule, e.g. biomolecule X, with other biomolecules, e.g.biomolecule Y and Z, that results in the ability to associate with aspecific disease state and may not correlate with any change in theabsolute concentration of biomarker X in the sample over time or diseasestate. Thus, a molecule that would not in the conventional sense beconsidered a biomarker since it does not change in absoluteconcentration in a sample from the pre-disease to disease state, may inview of the present disclosure be considered a biomolecule as itsrelative changes that are measured by the array of the present inventionare associated with a disease state. In other words, it may be anincrease or decrease in the interaction of biomolecule X (due to theinteractions of X with the sensor elements and other biomolecules in thesample) with the array that provides a signal that a biomarker isassociated with a disease state.

Suitable cancer biomarkers include, but are not limited to, for example,AHSG (α2-HS-Glycoprotein), AKR7A2 (Aflatoxin B1 aldehyde reductase),AKT3 (PKB γ), ASGR1 (ASGPR1), BDNF, BMP1 (BMP-1), BMPER, C9, CA6(Carbonic anhydrase VI), CAPG (CapG), CDH1 (Cadherin-1), CHRDL1(Chordin-Like 1), CKB-CKM-(CK-MB), CLIC1 (chloride intracellular channel1), CMA1 (Chymase), CNTN1 (Contactin-1), COL18A1 (Endostatin), CRP,CTSL2 (Cathepsin V), DDC (dopa decarboxylase), EGFR (ERBB1), FGA-FGB-FGG(D-dimer), FN1 (Fibronectin FN1.4), GHR (Growth hormone receptor), GPI(glucose phosphate isomerase), HMGB1 (HMG-1), HNRNPAB (hnRNP A/B), HP(Haptoglobin, Mixed Type), HSP90AA1 (HSP 90α), HSPA1A (HSP 70), IGFBP2(IGFBP-2), IGFBP4 (IGFBP-4), IL12B-IL23A (IL-23), ITIH4 (Inter-α-trypsininhibitor heavy chain H4), KIT (SCF sR), KLK3-SERPINA3 (PSA-ACT), L1CAM(NCAM-L1), LRIG3, MMP12 (MMP-12), MMPI (MMP-7), NME2 (NDP kinase B),PA2G4 (ErbB3 binding protein Ebp1), PLA2G7 (LpPLA2/PAFAH), PLAUR(suPAR), PRKACA (PRKA C-α), PRKCB (PKC-β-II), PROK1 (EG-VEGF), PRSS2(Trypsin-2), PTN (Pleiotrophin), SERPINA1 (α1-Antitrypsin), STC1(Stanniocalcin-1), STX1A (Syntaxin 1A), TACSTD2 (GA733-1 protein), TFF3(Trefoil factor 3), TGFBI (13IGH3), TPI1 (Triosephosphate isomerase),TPT1 (Fortilin), YWHAG (14-3-3 protein γ), YWHAH (14-3-3 protein eta),prostate cancer biomarkers, for example, PSA, Pro-PSA, PHI, PCA3,TMPRSS3:ERG, PCMT, MTEN, breast cancer markers, for example, epidermalgrowth factor receptor 2 (HER2) oncogene, melanoma biomarker BRAF, lungcancer biomarker EML4-ALK, A2ML1, BAX, C10orf47, Clorfl62, CSDA, EIFC3,ETFB, GABARAPL2, GUK1, GZMH, HIST1H3B, HLA-A, HSP90AA1, NRGN, PRDXS,PTMA, RABAC1, RABAGAP1L, RPL22, SAP 18, SEPW1, SOX1, EGFR, EGFRvIII,apolipoprotein AI, apolipoprotein CIII, myoglobin, tenascin C, MSH6,claudin-3, claudin-4, caveolin-1, coagulation factor III, CD9, CD36,CD37, CD53, CD63, CD81, CD136, CD147, Hsp70, Hsp90, Rabl3,Desmocollin-1, EMP-2, CK7, CK20, GCDF15, CD82, Rab-5b, Annexin V,MFG-E8, HLA-DR, a miR200 microRNA, MDC, NME-2, KGF, PIGF, Flt-3L, HGF,MCP1, SAT-1, MIP-1-b, GCLM, OPG, TNF RII, VEGF-D, ITAC, MMP-10, GPI,PPP2R4, AKR1B1, AmylA, MIP-1b, P-Cadherin, EPO and the like. Forexample, biomarkers for breast cancer include, but are not limited to,ER/PR, HER-2/neu, and the like. Biomarkers for colorectal cancerinclude, but are not limited to, for example, EGFR, KRAS, UGT1A1, andthe like. Biomarkers associated with leukemia/lymophoma include, but arenot limited to, e.g., CD20 antigen, CD30, FIP1L1-PDGFRalpha, PDGFR,Philladelphia Chromosome (BCR/ABL), PML/RAR alpha, TPMT, UGT1A1, and thelike. Biomarker associated with lung cancer include but are not limitedto, e.g., ALK, EGFR, KRAS and the like. Biomarkers are known in the art,and can be found in, for example, Bigbee W, Herberman R B. Tumor markersand immunodiagnosis. In: Bast R C Jr., Kufe D W, Pollock R E, et al.,editors. Cancer Medicine. 6th ed. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: BC DeckerInc., 2003; Andriole G, Crawford E, Grubb R, et al. Mortality resultsfrom a randomized prostate-cancer screening trial. New England Journalof Medicine 2009; 360(13):1310-1319; Schroder F H, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate-cancer mortality in a randomizedEuropean study. New England Journal of Medicine 2009; 360(13):1320-1328;Buys S S, Partridge E, Black A, et al. Effect of screening on ovariancancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO)Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2011;305(22):2295-2303; Cramer D W, Bast R C Jr, Berg C D, et al. Ovariancancer biomarker performance in prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovariancancer screening trial specimens. Cancer Prevention Research 2011;4(3):365-374; Sparano J A, Gray R J, Makower D F, et al. Prospectivevalidation of a 21-gene expression assay in breast cancer. New EnglandJournal of Medicine 2015; First published online Sep. 28, 2015. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1510764, incorporated by reference in their entireties.

Suitable, these methods can be used to determine biomarkers associatedwith cancer. For example, in one embodiment the cancer is glioblastoma,and wherein the biomarker is selected from the group consisting ofHABP1, VTNC, CO3, ITIH2, ITIH1, C07, FHRS, CBPN, ALBU, PLMN, CO4A,PRDX2, VWF, C4BPA, APOB, HBB, CNDP1, CRP, SAA4, APOE, CSCL7 andcombinations thereof. In another embodiment, the cancer is meningioma,and wherein the biomarker is selected from the group consisting of FCN3,RET4, HABP2, CBPN and combinations thereof. In another embodiment, thecancer is pancreatic cancer and wherein the biomarker is selected fromthe group consisting of KNG1, IC1, CBPB2, TRFE, GELS, CXCL7, HPTR, PGK1,AACT, LUM, APOE, FIBB, APOA2, A1BG, A1AT, LBP, APOA1, H4, FIBG andcombinations thereof. In another embodiment, the cancer is lung cancerand the biomarker is selected from the group consisting of COO, CRP,SAA4, APOA1, A1AT, GELS and combinations thereof. In another embodiment,the cancer is myeloma and the biomarker is ALBU.

Biomarkers may also be associated with the cardiovascular disease whichare known in the art and include, but are not limited to, lipid profile,glucose, and hormone level and physiological biomarkers based onmeasurement of levels of important biomolecules such as serum ferritin,triglyceride to HDLp (high density lipoproteins) ratio,lipophorin-cholesterol ratio, lipid-lipophorin ratio, LDL cholesterollevel, HDLp and apolipoprotein levels, lipophorins and LTPs ratio,sphingolipids, Omega-3 Index, and ST2 level, among others. Suitablebiomarkers for cardiovascular disease can be found in the art, forexample, but not limited to, in van Holten et al. “Ciculating Biomarkersfor Predicting Cardiovascular Disease Risk; a Systemic Review andComprehensive Overview of Meta-Analyses” PLoS One, 2013 8(4): e62080,incorporated by reference in its entirety.

Biomarkers may also be associated with a neurological disease. Suitablebiomarkers are known in the art and include, but are not limited to,e.g., Aβ1-42, t-tau and p-tau 181, α-synuclein, among others. See, e.g.,Chintamaneni and Bhaskar “Biomarkers in Alzheimer's Disease: A Review”ISRN Pharmacol. 2012. 2012: 984786. Published online 2012 Jun. 28,incorporated by reference in its entirety.

Biomarkers for inflammatory diseases are known in the art and include,but are not limited to, e.g., cytokines/chemokines, immune-relatedeffectors, acute-phase proteins [C-reactive protein (CRP) and serumamyloid A (SAA)], reactive oxygen species (ROS) and reactive nitrogenspecies (RNS), prostaglandins and cyclooxygenase (COX)-related factors,and mediators such as transcription factors and growth factors, whichcan include, for example, C-reactive protein (CRP), 5100, LIF, CXCL1,CXCL2, CXCL4, CXCL5, CXCL8, CXCL9, CXCL10, CCL2, CCL23, IL-Iβ, IL-IRa,TNF, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-17F, IL-21, IL-22, IFNγ, CXCR1, CXCR4,CXCR5, GM-CSF, GM-CSFR, G-CSF, G-CSFR, EGF, VEGFA, LEP, SAA1, VCAM1,CRP, MMP1, MMP3, TNFRSF1A, RETN, CHI3L1, antinuclear antibodies (ANA),rheumatoid factor (RF), antibodies against cyclic citrullinated peptide(anti-CCP)] and for chronic IBD (fecal calprotectin), among others.Suitable biomarkers for inflammatory bowel disease, for example, includeCRP, ESR, pANCA, ASCA, and fecal calprotectin. See, e.g., Yi Fengmingand Wu Jianbing, “Biomarkers of Inflammatory Bowel Disease,” DiseaseMarkers, vol. 2014, Article ID 710915, 11 pages, 2014.doi:10.1155/2014/710915, incorporated by reference in its entirety.

The terms “individual,” “subject,” and “patient” are usedinterchangeably herein irrespective of whether the subject has or iscurrently undergoing any form of treatment. As used herein, the term“subject” generally refers to any vertebrate, including, but not limitedto a mammal. Examples of mammals including primates, including simiansand humans, equines (e.g., horses), canines (e.g., dogs), felines,various domesticated livestock (e.g., ungulates, such as swine, pigs,goats, sheep, and the like), as well as domesticated pets (e.g., cats,hamsters, mice, and guinea pigs). Preferably, the subject is a human.

The arrays and methods described herein can be used under a number ofdifferent conditions to provide the desired biomolecule fingerprint. Forexample, the size of the sensor elements, the rate of flow of the samplethrough the sensor, the time of incubating the sensor array with thesample and the temperature at which the sensor array is incubated canall be changed to provide a reproducible biomolecule fingerprint.Suitable sizes of the sensor element include nanoscale sensor elementsthat have less than one micron in at least one direction.

Suitable time for incubating the array or plurality of sensor elementsinclude, at least a few seconds, e.g. at least 10 seconds to about 24hours, for example at least about 10 seconds, at least about 15 seconds,at least about 20 seconds, at least about 25 seconds, at least about 30seconds, at least about 40 seconds, at least about 50 seconds, at leastabout 60 seconds, at least about 90 seconds, at least about 2 minutes,at least about 3 minutes, at least about 4 minutes, at least about 5minutes, at least about 6 minutes, at least about 7 minutes, at leastabout 8 minutes, at least about 9 minutes, at least about 10 minutes, atleast about 15 minutes, at least about 20 minutes, at least about 25minutes, at least about 30 minutes, at least about 45 minutes, at leastabout 50 minutes, at least about 60 minutes, at least about 90 minutes,at least about 2 hours, at least about 3 hours, at least about 4 hours,at least about 5 hours, at least about 6 hours, at least about 7 hours,at least about 8 hours, at least about 9 hours, at least about 10 hours,at least about 12 hours, at least about 14 hours, at least about 15hours, at least about 16 hours, at least about 17 hours, at least about18 hours, at least about 19 hours, at least about 20 hours, and includeany time and increment in between (e.g. 10 seconds, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15,15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 33,34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51,52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 seconds, etc.; 1 minute, 2, 3, 4, 5,6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25,26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,etc.; 1 hour, 2 hours, 3, hours, 4, hours, 5 hours, 6 hours, 7 hours, 8hours etc.)

Further, the temperature at which the assay is performed can bedetermined by one skilled in the art, and incudes temperatures betweenabout 4° C. to about 40° C., alternatively from about 4° C. to about 20°C., alternatively from about 10° C. to about 15° C., alternatively fromabout 10° C. to about 40° C., for example, at about 4° C., about 5° C.,about 6° C., about 7° C., about 8° C., about 9° C., about 10° C., about11° C., about 12° C., about 13° C., about 14° C., about 15° C., about16° C., about 17° C., about 18° C., about 19° C., about 20° C., about21° C., about 22° C., about 25° C., about 30° C., about 35° C., about37° C., etc. Suitable, the assay may be performed at room temperature(e.g. around about 37° C., for example from about 35° C. to about 40°C.).

The methods of the present invention may comprise contacting the samplewith the sensor array. The contacting of the sample with the sensorarray may be using any suitable flow rate in which the sample can flowover the sensor array. In some aspects, the flow velocity of thestreams, the Reynolds number, or the relative cross sectional areas ofthe flow streams can be altered to provide adequate contact between thesample and the sensor array.

For example, in embodiments using a nanochannel or microchannel thecross sectional area of the first stream can be more than 1% of thecross sectional area of the channel. In another example, thecross-sectional area of the first stream can be less than 90% of thecross sectional area of the channel. The cross sectional area ratio canbe 10:1 to 1:10, 1:5 to 5:1, 1:3 to 3:1, 1:2 to 2:1 or 1:1.

In certain other circumstances, the flow of the sample over the arrayhas a Reynolds number at the location of the introduction of the sampleof between 300 and 1,000,000. In some instances, the location of theintroduction of the sample is a nanochannel or microchannel.

Kits

Aspects of the present disclosure that are described with respect tomethods can be utilized in the context of the sensor array or kitsdiscussed in this disclosure. Similarly, aspects of the presentdisclosure that are described with respect to the sensor array andmethods can be utilized in the context of the kits, and aspects of thepresent disclosure that are described with respect to kits can beutilized in the context of the methods and sensor array.

This disclosure provides kits. The kits can be suitable for use in themethods described herein. Suitable kits include a kit for determining abiomolecule fingerprint for a sample comprising a sensor array asdescribed herein. In one aspect, the kit provides a sensor arraycomprising at least two sensor elements which have differingphysiocochemical properties from each other. In some aspects, the kitsprovides a comparative panel of biomolecule fingerprints in order to usethe biomolecule fingerprint to determine a disease state for thesubject. In some aspects, instructions on how to determine thebiomolecule fingerprint are included. In some suitable embodiments, thesensor arrays are provided as chip arrays in the kit.

In other aspects, kits for determining a disease state of a subject ordiagnosing or prognosing a disease in a subject are provided. Suitablekits include a sensor array comprising at least two sensor elementswhich have differing physiocochemical properties from each other todetermining a biomolecule fingerprint. Further, the kit may furtherinclude a comparative panel of biomolecule fingerprint of differentdisease states or different diseases or disorders. Instructions ondetermining the biomolecule fingerprint and analysis are provided.

It should be apparent to those skilled in the art that many additionalmodifications beside those already described are possible withoutdeparting from the inventive concepts. In interpreting this disclosure,all terms should be interpreted in the broadest possible mannerconsistent with the context. Variations of the term “comprising” shouldbe interpreted as referring to elements, components, or steps in anon-exclusive manner, so the referenced elements, components, or stepsmay be combined with other elements, components, or steps that are notexpressly referenced. Embodiments referenced as “comprising” certainelements are also contemplated as “consisting essentially of” and“consisting of” those elements. The term “consisting essentially of” and“consisting of” should be interpreted in line with the MPEP and relevantFederal Circuit's interpretation. The transitional phrase “consistingessentially of” limits the scope of a claim to the specified materialsor steps “and those that do not materially affect the basic and novelcharacteristic(s)” of the claimed invention. “Consisting of” is a closedterm that excludes any element, step or ingredient not specified in theclaim.

The following non-limiting examples are included for purposes ofillustration only, and are not intended to limit the scope of the rangeof techniques and protocols in which the compositions and methods of thepresent invention may find utility, as will be appreciated by one ofskill in the art and can be readily implemented.

EXAMPLES Example 1A. Label-Free Sensor Array for Early Detection ofCancer

The present Example provides a label-free sensor array for earlydetection of various cancers. The sensor array consists of threedifferent cross-reactive liposomes with various surface charges (i.e.,cationic (DOPG (1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1′-rac-glycerol)),anionic (DOTAP(1,2-Dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane)-DOPE(dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine)),and neutral (CHOL (DOPC-Cholesterol)), whose protein corona compositionchanges in response to their interactions with the plasma of patientswho have different types of various cancers, i.e., lung, pancreas,myeloma, meningioma, and glioblastoma. Although no single protein coronacomposition is specific for any one cancer type, the changes in thecorona composition pattern provide a unique “fingerprint” for each typeof cancer.

Hard corona profiles of the sensor array elements using plasma frompatients with cancers at early, intermediate, and advanced stages. Thecomposition of the protein corona that forms on the surface of sensorarray elements (nanoparticles) is strongly dependent on thephysicochemical properties of those nanoparticles and, at the same time,can be strongly affected by the type of disease present in the donor ofthe human plasma used for incubation. The size and charge of thecorona-coated nanoparticles, after incubation with plasma from patientswith five different types of cancers (i.e., glioblastoma multiforme,lung cancer, meningioma, multiple myeloma, and pancreatic cancer) andhealthy individuals (see Table 1), were probed using dynamic lightscattering (DLS/Nanosight) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM),and the results demonstrated that the physicochemical properties of thecorona-coated nanoparticles depended substantially on the type of cancer(FIG. 2A,B).

TABLE 1 General information on patients (and their cancer types) whoseplasma was used in this study. CANCER STAGE PATIENT LABEL AGE GENDERCANCER STAGE CATEGORY HEALTHY 1 43 F — — HEALTHY 2 54 M — — HEALTHY 3 67F — — HEALTHY 4 69 M — — HEALTHY 5 61 F — — PANCREAS 1 81 M TNM: cT4 N +Advanced M+ PANCREAS 2 76 M TNM: cT2 N+ Moderate PANCREAS 3 60 F TNM:cT4 N+ Advanced PANCREAS 4 75 M TNM: cT3 N + Advanced M+ PANCREAS 5 61 FTNM: cT3 N + Advanced M+ PANCREAS 6 71 F TNM: cT3 N+ Advanced PANCREAS 761 M TNM: cT3 N+ Advanced PANCREAS 8 67 M TNM: cT3 N+ Advanced LUNG 1 45F TNM: TIA N0 M0 Early LUNG 2 24 M TNM: TIA N0 M0 Early LUNG 3 44 F TNM:TIA N0 M0 Early LUNG 4 48 F TNM: TIA N0 M0 Early LUNG 5 40 M TNM: TIA N0M0 Early LUNG 6 47 F TNM: TIA N0 M0 Early LUNG 7 51 M TNM: TIA N0 M0Early LUNG 8 52 F TNM: TIA N0 M0 Early MYELOMA 1 41 F Onset II (52%Moderate Plasma cells in Bone Marrow; Monoclonal IgG-k) MYELOMA 2 60 FOnset I (28% Early Plasma cells in Bone Marrow; Monoclonal IgG-k)MYELOMA 3 57 F Onset I (8% Early Plasma cells in Bone Marrow; MonoclonalIgG-k) MYELOMA 4 63 M Onset I (9% Early Plasma cells in Bone Marrow;Monoclonal IgG-k) MYELOMA 5 75 M Onset II (42% Moderate Plasma cells inBone Marrow; Monoclonal IgG-k) MYELOMA 6 46 F Onset I (15% Early Plasmacells in Bone Marrow; Monoclonal IgG-L) MYELOMA 7 56 F Onset I (44%Early Plasma cells in Bone Marrow; Monoclonal I gG-L) MYELOMA 8 70 FOnset I (27% Early Plasma cells in Bone Marrow; Monoclonal IgG-L)GLIOBLASTOMA 1 58 M WHO 4 Advanced GLIOBLASTOMA 2 75 M WHO 4 AdvancedGLIOBLASTOMA 3 76 M WHO 4 Advanced GLIOBLASTOMA 4 73 M WHO 4 AdvancedGLIOBLASTOMA 5 76 F WHO 4 Advanced GLIOBLASTOMA 6 62 M WHO 4 AdvancedGLIOBLASTOMA 7 48 M WHO 4 Advanced GLIOBLASTOMA 8 56 M WHO 4 AdvancedMENINGIOMA 1 82 F WHO 2 Moderate MENINGIOMA 2 50 F WHO 2 ModerateMENINGIOMA 3 80 M WHO 2 Moderate MENINGIOMA 4 67 M WHO 2 ModerateMENINGIOMA 5 64 M WHO 2 Moderate MENINGIOMA 6 84 M WHO 2 EarlyMENINGIOMA 7 58 F WHO 2 Early MENINGIOMA 8 70 M WHO 2 Early

Quantitative evaluation of the total protein adsorbed onto thenanoparticles was performed via the BCA or NanoOrange assay, and theresults showed significant differences in the amounts of adsorbedproteins after incubation in plasma from patients with various types ofcancers (FIG. 2B). The quantitative evaluation of the total proteinadsorbed on the surface of liposomes showed strong dependency of proteinamount on cancer type (FIG. 2B). The protein corona composition at thesurface of three liposomes was evaluated by liquid chromatography-massspectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in which the abundance of 1,800 known proteinswas defined. The contribution of individual proteins and theircategories (i.e., complement, coagulation, tissue leakage, lipoproteins,acute phase, immunoglobulins, and other plasma proteins) to the coronacomposition were defined (FIG. 2C; FIG. 3A-F). These resultsdemonstrated significant associations between the protein compositionand not only the cancer type but also the type of sensor element (i.e.,type of nanoparticle).

According to an extensive body of literature, there are considerablerelationships between cancer development and variations in complement,coagulation, tissue leakage, lipoproteins, acute phase, andimmunoglobulins. Therefore, the cross-reactive interactions of theseprotein categories with nanoparticles may provide unique “fingerprints”for each type of cancer, which may facilitate cancer identification anddiscrimination. Consequently, one would expect the protein corona sensorarray to cross-reactively adsorb a wide range of proteins involved incancer induction and development that could be used for canceridentification and discrimination.

Develop supervised classification analysis to identify and discriminateamong cancers using the protein corona sensor array outcomes. In orderto investigate whether protein corona fingerprints (PCFs) of varioussensor elements could be utilized as a biosensors and form uniquepatterns for different diseases, we have applied focused classificationapproaches to proteomic data on three liposomes' protein coronacomposition (cationic, anionic, and neutral). Details of the methods aredescribed in the Methods section. A weighted-variable importance in theprojection (VIP) score is introduced and applied for ranking ofvariables based on partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA)as a linear projection method. Selection of the most relevant variables(proteins) in building the classification model can be guided by a setof obtained ranked variables. In this regard, top ranked variables wereadded to the model one by one, and the classification error of thePLS-DA model was monitored. We observed that the classification modelhas the minimum error by using only the top 69 features (FIG. 4A). Thenew 69-dimensional feature space was successfully used to discriminate30 samples belonging to six classes by PLS-DA with a high classificationaccuracy (0.97) using leave-one-out and 10-fold cross-validation (FIG.4A,B). The classification parameters are given in Table 2. Thecontribution of each single selected protein to the separation of eachcancer group (VIP) is plotted on the y- and x-axis, respectively, toprovide a visual representation of the relative specificity of thefindings (FIG. 4B-F). The proteins with higher VIP scores could beconsidered the best informative or diagnostic set to discriminate eachdisease from controls and from among all cancer categories.

TABLE 2 Classification results obtained from two developed andnon-linear models for six groups of samples. PLS-DA, Models/ 10 fold CV,CPANN classification LV = 5 (8*8 ) parameters 20 iteration 10 fold CVSpecificity (CV) 1 1.00 1.00 2 0.96 0.96 3 1.00 1.00 4 1.00 1.00 5 1.001.00 6 1.00 1.00 Sensitivity (CV) 1 1.00 1.00 2 1.00 1.00 3 1.00 0.80 41.00 1.00 5 1.00 1.00 6 1.00 1.00 Class error (CV) 1 0.00 0.00 2 0.030.02 3 0.00 0.00 4 0.00 0.00 5 0.00 0.00 6 0.00 0.00 1) Control 2)Glioblastoma 3) Meningioma 4) Myeloma 5) Pancreas 6) Lung cancers

PLS-DA and counter propagation artificial neural network (CPANN) werethen applied to the selected variables, and whole samples as supervisedclassification, linear, and non-linear approaches, respectively. Itshould be noted that the primary data set with all variables beforevariable selection, has poor discrimination and could not be separatedinto six groups.

Next, to further verify and analyze the data, we decided to takeadvantage of a non-linear classification method. Visualizing the featurespace can help us understand the hidden structures and topologicalrelationships among the patterns. To reduce the dimensionality of thefeature space while preserving the topological relation in the datastructure, the CPANN (a supervised variant of self-organizing maps/SOM)was used to learn and predict the class membership of the patterns,simultaneously producing a two-dimensional map of neurons and providevaluable information (from a non-linear approach) about the datastructure. Details of the CPANN are provided in the Methods section.Different sizes for the CPANN map were checked using 10-foldcross-validation; a map including 64 (8×8) neurons was chosen due to theminimum classification error (FIG. 9C). Moreover, the topologicalstructure of data in the high-dimensional space is reflected in theassignation map produced by CPANN (FIG. 5C,D). Considering thesimilarity of the neurons to the input vectors, the map can bepartitioned into six distinct zones related to different type of cancersand control samples. Samples with the same class label are mapped ontonearby or the same neurons, which means that the selected variablesprovide information valuable in discriminating the samples in thefeature space. The relative position and orientation of six zones on themap can contribute qualitative information on the similarities betweentypes of cancers. To represent the effect of variable selection on thequality of mapping, another CPANN was trained with all 1823 variables,and the resulting map shows that the selected biomarkers (variables)play an important role in discriminating among cancer types andclassifying them properly (FIG. 5C,D).

On the basis of the obtained results, both linear and non-linear modelsshowed high accuracy, deduced from their acceptable specificity,sensitivity, and class error values. Consistent with these findings,unsupervised clustering (HCA) based on 69 markers was able to stronglyseparate, various type of cancerous and control samples (FIG. 5E-F). Ascan be seen in FIG. 5, there is close similarity between theglioblastoma and meningioma groups of samples, implying difficulty indiscrimination, most probably related to similar plasma proteomicspatterns in these two brain cancers. These results reflect the fact thatthe plasma concentrations of many proteins in the corona differconsiderably, not only among subjects with different types of cancers,but among healthy individuals as well.

To illustrate the biosensors' capability for pattern recognition, a setof analyses was performed on the data obtained from individualnanoparticles. As expected, the pattern of cancer-specific fingerprintscould not be extracted solely from each nanoparticle's PCF. We foundthat pattern-recognition techniques applied to protein abundance in theprotein corona formed on three different liposomes (cationic, anionic,and neutral) correctly distinguished not only cancerous from controlsamples, but also each type of cancer under consideration from theothers.

Identification of proteins with crucial roles in cancer detection anddiscrimination as promising biomarkers for specific types of cancers.The use of biomarkers both before cancer diagnosis (in risk assessmentand screening/early detection) and after diagnosis (in monitoringtherapy, selecting additional therapy, and detecting recurrence) wouldyield substantial therapeutic and health-economic benefits. Tounderstand the potential biological relevance of the 69 selectedproteins that discriminate cancerous samples, we manually searchedthrough previously published reports in PubMed on protein biomarkers ofspecific types of cancers that are upregulated or downregulatedaccording to different disease stages. The resulting data were comparedwith the selected proteins in the model to identify matched markers anddetermine the biological relevance of the proposed model. Interestingly,we noted significant numbers of biomarkers specific to five investigatedgroups of cancers among the selected predictors that had been reportedas specific cancer biomarkers (FIG. 7B).

The high specificity of the selected markers for discriminating amongthe five groups of cancers, which derives from the introduced proteincorona sensor array approach, demonstrates a significant correlationwith the work now under way in the complex cancer proteomics space;therefore this strategy not only provides a basis for cancer predictionbut also translates that promise into reality. It is noteworthy that thediscrimination between different groups occurs as a result of severalpredictors (and not individual biomarkers) that change simultaneously ina systematic manner, forming patterns unique to each specific type ofcancer. On the basis of this evidence, the most informative predictorsselected by the proposed model that have not already been reported ascancer-specific biomarkers may have great potential as new diagnosisbiomarker candidates. To define their role in cancer development, thevariation and functionality of these promising candidates in cancerpatients should be carefully monitored. By focusing on the uniquepatterns derived from huge numbers of subjects via a set of informativepredictors, researchers should be able to predict cancers at differentstages more accurately than is possible using current methods.

Cohort data analysis. To probe the capacity of this innovative sensorarray for very early detection of cancers, we used cohort plasma fromhealthy people who were diagnosed with one of the five types of cancersseveral years after plasma collection. Using the cohort samples, weevaluated whether our proposed models, both linear and non-linear, with69 selected predictors could be utilized for cancer prediction.

To this end, the values related to 69 variables were put into the model,and the class membership of each cohort object was predicted given thefixed optimum parameters values. It is noteworthy that 19 variables(proteins), out of the 69 variables, were absence in the proteomicsprofile of protein corona sensor array of cohort samples; thereforetheir amount in the validation data matrix was zero. Interestingly, bothlinear and non-linear models provided good predictions for all fivesamples. The observed distance between training and cohort samples (FIG.6A,B), most probably influenced by zero values that were added to datamatrix for those 19 absent variables. As shown in FIG. 6C, D, the cohortsamples were placed in the correct neuron related to Glioblastoma in theCPANN map. METHODS

Liposomes. Cholesterol (Chol) was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (St.Louis, Mo., USA). DOPC (dioleoylphosphatidylcholine), DOPE(dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine), DOPG(1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1′-rac-glycerol)), and DOTAP(1,2-Dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane) were purchased from AvantiPolar Lipids (Alabaster, Ala., USA). DOPG, DOTAP-DOPE (1:1 molar ratio)and DOPC-Chol (1:1 molar ratio) liposomes were prepared by dissolvingappropriate amounts of lipids 9:1 (v/v) in chloroform:methanol. Thechloroform:methanol mixture was evaporated by rotary-evaporation. Lipidfilms were kept under vacuum overnight and hydrated with phosphatesaline buffer (PBS) 10 mmol/l (pH 7.4) to a final lipid concentration of1 mg/ml. The liposome suspensions obtained were sized by extrusionthrough a 50-nm polycarbonate carbonate filter by the AvantiMini-Extruder (Avanti Polar Lipids, Alabaster, Ala.).

Human plasma collection, preparation, and storage. Human plasma (HP) wascollected from healthy and cancer patients diagnosed with glioblastomamultiforme, lung cancer, meningioma, multiple myeloma, or pancreaticcancer. The present study was approved by the Ethical Committees of theSapienza University of Rome (glioblastoma multiforme, meningioma,multiple myeloma), the University of Napoli Federico II (lung cancer),and the University Campus Bio-Medico di Roma (pancreatic cancer). Inbrief, blood was collected by venipuncture of healthy subjects andcancer patients by means of a BD P100 Blood Collection System (FranklinLakes, N.J., USA) with push-button technology that reduces blood wastewhile minimizing the risk of contamination. After clot formation,samples were centrifuged at 1000×g for 5 min to pellet the blood cells,and the supernatant was removed. After confirming the absence ofhemolysis, plasma collected from each donor (1 ml) was split into200-microliter aliquots and stored at −80° C. in labeled Protein LoBindtubes until use. For analysis, the aliquots were thawed at 4° C. andthen allowed to warm at room temperature (RT).

Cohort plasma samples. We used human plasma from healthy peoplediagnosed with brain, lung, and pancreatic cancers within eight yearsafter plasma collection. The plasma samples were collected through theNIH-funded Golestan Cohort Study, performed by the National CancerInstitute (NCI) in the USA, the International Agency for Research onCancer (IARC) in France, and the Tehran University of Medical Sciences(TUMS) in Iran. This study involved the collection and storage of plasmafrom 50,000 healthy subjects, over 1,000 of whom went on to developvarious types of cancers in subsequent years. Samples from fiveindividuals per cancer were used in this study. These important plasmasamples provide us the unique opportunity to probe the capacity of ourinnovative protein corona sensor array for early detection of cancers.

Size and zeta-potential. Bare liposomes were incubated with HP (1:1 v/v)for 1 hour at 37° C. Subsequently samples were centrifuged at 14000 rpmfor 15 minutes at 4° C. to pellet liposome-HP complexes. The resultingpellet was washed three times with phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) andresuspended in ultrapure water. For size and zeta-potentialmeasurements, 10 μL of each sample were diluted with 990 μL ofdistillated water. All size and zeta-potential measurements wereperformed at RT using a Zetasizer Nano ZS90 (Malvern, U.K.) equippedwith a 5-mW HeNe laser (wavelength A=632.8 μm) and a digital logarithmiccorrelator. The normalized intensity autocorrelation functions wereanalyzed by the CONTIN method to obtain the distribution of thediffusion coefficient D of the particles. D is converted into aneffective hydro-dynamic radius R_(H) by the Stokes-Einstein equation(R_(H)=K_(B)T/6πη1D), where K_(B)T is the thermal energy and η is thesolvent viscosity. Electrophoretic mobility of samples, u, was measuredby laser Doppler electrophoresis. Zeta-potential was calculated by theSmoluchowski relation (zeta potential=uη/ε) where η and ε are theviscosity and the permittivity of the solvent phase, respectively). Sizeand zeta-potential of liposome-HP complexes are given as mean±standarddeviation (S.D.) of five independent measurements.

Protein assay. Liposome formulations were incubated with HP (1:1 v/v)for 1 hour at 37° C. Afterwards, liposome-HP complexes were pelleted at15000×g for 15 minutes at 4° C. and washed three times with PBS. Washedpellet was resuspended in urea 8 mol/l, NH₄CO₃ 50 mmol/l. 10 microlitersof each sample were added to five wells of a 96-well plate. Proteinquantification was made adding 150 microliters/well of Protein Assayreagent (Pierce, Thermo Scientific, Waltham, Mass., USA). The multiwellwas shaken and incubated at room temperature for 5 minutes. Absorbancewas measured with GloMax Discover System (Promega, Madison, Wis., USA)at 660 μm. Background effects were properly corrected and the proteinconcentration was calculated using the standard curve. Results are givenas mean±S.D. of five independent replicates.

Protein identification and quantification. The incubation procedure wasperformed as described elsewhere (Label-free quantitative analysis forstudying the interactions between nanoparticles and plasma proteins.Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2013, 405, 2-3, 635-645,incorporated by reference in its entirety). Liposome formulations wereincubated with HP (1:1 v/v) for 1 hour at 37° C. Samples werecentrifuged at 15000×g for 15 min to pellet liposome-HP complexes. Thepellet was washed three times with 10 mmol/l Tris HCl (pH 7.4), 150mmol/l NaCl and 1 mmol/l EDTA. After washing, the pellet was air driedand resuspended in the digestion buffer. The digestion and peptidedesalting were carried out as previously described (Shotgun proteomicanalytical approach for studying proteins adsorbed onto liposomesurface. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2013, 401, 4,1195-1202, incorporated by reference in its entirety). In brief, pelletwas resuspended in 40 microliters of urea 8 mol/l, NH₄CO₃ 50 mmol/l anddigested by adding 2 micrograms of trypsin. The digested peptides weredesalted using SPE C18 column, reconstituted with a suitable volume of a0.1% formic acid solution, and stored at −80° C. until analysis.Digested peptides were analyzed by nano-high-performance liquidchromatography (HPLC) coupled to tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS).NanoHPLC MS/MS analysis was carried out using a Dionex Ultimate 3000(Dionex Corporation Sunnyvale, Calif., U.S.A.) directly connected to ahybrid linear ion trap-Orbitrap mass spectrometer (Orbitrap LTQ-XL,Thermo Scientific, Bremen, Germany) by a nanoelectrospray ion source.Peptide mixtures were enriched on a 300 μm ID×5 mm Acclaim PepMap 100C18 precolumn (Dionex Corporation Sunnyvale, Calif., U.S.A.), employinga premixed mobile phase made up of ddH2O/ACN, 98/2 (v/v) containing 0.1%(v/v) HCOOH, at a flow-rate of 10 microliters/min. Peptide mixtures werethen separated by reversed-phase (RP) chromatography. The largest set ofpeptides was detected using a 3-hour optimized LC gradient composed of amobile phase A of ddH2O/HCOOH (99.9/0.1, v/v) and a mobile phase B ofACN/HCOOH (99.9/:0.1, v/v). MS spectra of eluting peptides werecollected over an m/z range of 350-1700 using a resolution setting of60,000 (full width at half-maximum at m/z 400), operating in thedata-dependent mode. MS/MS spectra were collected for the five mostabundant ions in each MS scan. Further details can be found elsewhere(Shotgun proteomic analytical approach for studying proteins adsorbedonto liposome surface. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 2013,401, 4, 1195-1202). For each experimental condition three independentsamples (biological replicates) were prepared, each of which wasmeasured in triplicate (technical replicates), yielding ninemeasurements for each experimental condition. RAW data files weresubmitted to Mascot (v2.3, Matrix Science, London, UK) usingThermo-Finningan LCQ/DECA RAW file data import filter to performdatabase searches against the non-redundant Swiss-Prot database(09-2014, 546000 sequences, Homo Sapiens taxonomy restriction). For thedatabase search, trypsin was specified as the proteolytic enzyme with amaximum of two missed cleavages. Carbamidomethylation was set as fixedmodification of cysteine, whereas oxidation of methionine was chosen asvariable modification. The monoisotopic mass tolerance for precursorions and fragmentation ions were set to 10 ppm and 0.8 Da, respectively.Charge state of +2 or +3 were selected as precursor ions. Proteomeoutput files were submitted to the commercial software Scaffold (v3.6,Proteome Software, Portland, Oreg., USA). Peptide identifications werevalidated if they surpassed a 95% probability threshold set by thePeptideproPhet algorithm. Protein identifications were accepted if theycould be established at greater than 99.0% probability and contained atleast two unique peptides. Proteins that contained shared peptides andcould not be differentiated on the basis of MS/MS analysis alone weregrouped to satisfy the principles of parsimony. Unweighted spectrumcounts (USC) were used to assess the consistency of biologicalreplicates in quantitative analysis, and normalized spectrum counts (NCS) was used to retrieve protein abundance.

Statistical Analysis. All statistical analyses were performed using PLS,Kohonen, and CPANN toolboxes, and graphs were created using MicrosoftExcel, XLSTAT, and MATLAB.

Data matrix. Each raw of the predictor matrix (X) relating to eachindividual is derived from all proteins' abundance obtained from thethree-protein corona sensor array (FIG. 4A). In the preprocessing step,the normalized data in matrix X, relative protein abundance (RPA), wereauto-scaled.

Classification and Clustering.

Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA). Partial leastsquares discriminant analysis is a well-known multivariate approachregarded as a linear classification and dimension reduction methodconsisting of two main parts a structural part, which searches forlatent variables as linear combinations of original independentvariables (i.e., data matrix X), which have the maximum covariation withthe corresponding dependent-variables (i.e., class membership, Y). Themeasured components include the latent variables as scores and loadings,which show how the latent variables and their original ones are related.Based on the ability of PLSDA to reduce the dimensionality of the data,it allows a linear mapping and graphical visualization of the differentdata patterns. PLS-DA is particularly well suited to deal with highlycollinear and noisy patterns. The main problems associated with thelarge dataset in proteomics are the large number of monitored variables(i.e., proteins) and relatively small number of samples. Hence, theremay be a high redundancy among variables, which render many of themuninformative and irrelevant to the classification. In this way,eliminating uninformative variables or finding new uncorrelated ones mayimprove the predictive performance of classification. Since inbiomedical applications such as the present work, we must not only makedecisions about whether a sample belongs to one of a number of knowngroups, but also determine which variables are most relevant for thebest discrimination between classes, a method like PLS-DA is a goodcandidate approach for finding uncorrelated new latent variables whilepreserving the variation of the data The impotence power of the originalvariables to produce latent projections can also be calculated by thevariable importance in the projection (VIP) analysis and can play asignificant role in to decide about variables.

Identifying the most relevant variables based on weighted VIP. Thepartial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) was used to explorethe VIP values associated with variables. VIP is a combined measure ofhow much a variable contributes to a description of the two sets ofdata: the dependent (Y) and the independent variables (X). The weightsin a PLS model reflect the covariance between the independent anddependent variables, and the inclusion of the weights allows VIP toreflect not only how well the dependent variable is described but alsohow important that information is for the model of the independentvariables.

An approach based on VIP score was developed to identify the best subsetof variables. VIP scores can be calculated by performing PLS-DA on thedataset. In that approach, VIP scores of variables are calculated 50times, each time using a random permutation of training and validationsets (random training sets were selected iteratively by considering80-percent coverage of each class of objects). Considering the mostimportant variables, the large VIP-score values (>2), the top 200variables can be selected at each repetition and added to thetop-variables pool. Afterward, a frequency of occurrence (Freq_(i)) andan average VIP-score (VIP _(i)) for each variable can be obtainedaccording to the top-variables pool. Thus, the selection of variable i(which has a high VIP _(i) value and low VIP _(i) value) is lessrecommended because of dependency on the training and validation sets.Therefore, the VIP value of each variable can be weighted by Freq_(i),and ranking of the most relevant variables can be done using theweighted VIP _(i). Fig_appr is a schematic diagram of the proposedapproach. Selection of the most relevant variables to build theclassification model can be guided by the obtained ranking as follows:The highly ranked variables were added one by one to the dataset, andthe classification error of PLS-DA was calculated to find the minimumnumber of relevant predictors (FIG. 4A).

Counter-Propagation Artificial Neural Network (CPANN). Thecounter-propagation artificial neural network (CPANN) is a supervisedvariant of self-organizing map that consists of two layers of neuronsarranged on a predefined N×N grid. CPANN can be used to map data from ahigh-dimensional feature space to a low-dimensional (typically 2)discrete space of neurons as well as to predict the class membership ofthe unknown samples. The input vectors (sample feature vector) andcorresponding class membership vectors (a binary vector) are presentedto the input and output layer of CPANN, respectively. The weightcorrection of the neurons in both layers performs based on competitivelearning and cooperation of the neurons (See FIG. 67, Table 3). Hence,similar input vectors can be mapped on the same or adjacent neurons andvice versa. The final assignation map properly reveals the structure ofthe data in feature space and preserves the distance of patterns in thelow-dimensional grid of neurons. FIG. 9C shows a high-qualityassignation map of CPANN using top-ranked biomarkers. According to thedistinct regions for each class, the risk of classification error isminimized. The proper size of the map can be decided by performing10-fold cross-validation at different map sizes. The trained CPANN canbe used to assign a class membership to an unlabeled sample. Presence ofredundant and uninformative variables in training data will affect thequality of the map and increase the risk of an error of classification(FIG. 5C). The process is a nonlinear mapping, which helps visualize ahigh-dimensional input object on a two-dimensional neuron grid. It is aself-organized procedure and solves the issue of classification in atransparent way. More details about the CPANN method can be found in thefollowing references.

Hierarchical clustering analysis (HCA). Hierarchical clustering analysisis an unsupervised method widely used to explore and visualize wholeheterogeneous large data sets like those often used in proteomics intodistinct and homogeneous clusters. Strategies for hierarchicalclustering can be divided into two categories: agglomerative anddivisive methods. The agglomerative procedure first separates eachobject into its own individual cluster and then combines the clusterssequentially; similar objects or clusters are merged until every objectbelongs to only one cluster. The divisive procedure, in contrast, startswith all of the objects in one large cluster and gradually partitionsthem into smaller clusters until each object is in an individualcluster. Finally, objects are organized into a dendrogram whose branchesare the defined clusters. In cluster analysis, to identify homogeneoussub-groups, the two important concepts, similarity (determining anumerical value for the similarity between objects and constructing asimilarity matrix) and linkage (connection of an object to a group ornot) should be defined. Herein, we applied agglomerative hierarchicalclustering with furthest-neighbor linkage algorithm for unsupervisedanalysis based on the selected variables.

Cohort sample prediction. The predictive ability of both linear andnon-linear variables, with 69 selected predictors, were assessed bycohort samples analysis. To this end, the values related to 69 variableswere put into the model, and the class membership of each cohort objectwas predicted at the fixed optimum parameters values. The 19 variables(proteins) in the proteomics profile of our protein corona sensor arrayof cohort samples were not detected, and zero were considered for thesevariables in validation data matrix. Interestingly, both linear andnon-linear models provide good predictions for all five samples. Thedistance between training and cohort samples shown in FIG. 6A is mostprobably related to zero values that were added to the data matrix forthose 19 absent variables. We examined the effect of replaced zerovalues for absent variables by deleting these 19 proteins from both datamatrices of the training and prediction sets; then the PLS-DA model wasbuilt and cohort samples were predicted. As expected, no large distancebetween cohort and training samples was observed.

Table 3. See FIG. 67 Correlation coefficient of CPANN weight map foreach variable in the six classes.

For each variable, the correlation coefficient of corresponding weightmap with the assignation map pattern can be calculated.

CC=0: indicates no correlation between biomarker and the related class;1>CC(i)>0: accordance between the biomarker intensity and cancer relatedclass. 0<CC<−1: an inverse correlation between biomarker value andcancer-related class. The CC values >0.5 or <−0.5 are colored. Forexample, the weight map of biomarker 1282 is highly correlated with thecancer class 4 pattern on the assignation map, and it may be animportant biomarker for the samples from patients with myeloma.

Example 1B. In Depth Analysis of Human Proteome Using Multi-NanoparticleProtein Corona Characterization and Machine Learning Enable AccurateIdentification and Discrimination of Cancers at Early Stages

In a second embodiment, the collective protein corona data for a givenplasma sample, derived from individual nanoparticles' protein coronaprofiles, is able to identify and discriminate different types ofcancers using machine learning (e.g., random forest approach) to analyzethe data. The sensor array as described in Example 1A was used and thedata collected was further analyzed by machine learning in furtherdetail. This sensor array (i.e. protein corona nanosystem) unambiguouslyand robustly identified cancer and allows for the discrimination amongdifferent types of cancers. This system can be used to predict cancertypes using blind plasma samples. The capacity for very early detectionby using the plasma of healthy people in existing cohorts who werediagnosed with cancers several years after plasma collection todetermine a pre-cancer biomolecule fingerprint.

FIG. 1 presents a schematic overview of the use of the sensor array(nanoparticle system) to use multi-protein-corona proteomics for cancerdetection in known cancer patients and for cancer prediction using bothblind plasma and cohort samples.

Results

Protein corona profiles of the nanosystem using plasma from patientswith cancers at early, intermediate, and advanced stages

Our protein corona nanosystem consists of three different cross-reactiveliposomes with various surface charges [anionic (DOPG(1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1′-rac-glycerol))), cationic (DOTAP(1,2-Dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane)-DOPE(dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine)), and neutral (CHOL(DOPC-Cholesterol))], whose protein corona profiles were measured afterexposure to the plasma of healthy subjects or patients with one of fivecancers: lung, pancreas, myeloma, meningioma, or glioblastoma.

We performed proteomic analysis on each patient (5 patients/group) intriplicate for each of the three liposomes (see FIG. 2A,B for details onthe size and charge of the liposomes) in our protein corona nanosystem(i.e., total trials: 3*(29)*3=261). Although no single protein coronacomposition is specific for any one cancer type as also described inExample 1A, the collective protein corona composition for a given plasmasample derived from different liposomes provided a unique “fingerprint”for each type of cancer.

Though the composition of the protein corona that forms on the surfaceof liposomes is strongly dependent on their physicochemical properties,it can also be strongly affected by the unique type, concentration, andconformation of proteins and other biomolecules present in a givenpatient's plasma. The size and charge of corona-coated liposomes wereprobed using dynamic light scattering (DLS/Nanosight), after incubationwith plasma from patients with five different types of cancers (seeTable 1) and healthy individuals. The results confirmed that thephysicochemical properties of the corona-coated nanoparticles variedacross different types of cancer (FIG. 2A,B).

Quantitative evaluation of the total protein adsorbed onto the liposomeswas performed via the BCA (bicinchoninic acid) or NanoOrange assays, andthe results confirmed significant differences in the amounts of adsorbedproteins after incubation in plasma from patients with various types ofcancers (FIG. 3A-F). Quantitative evaluation of the total proteinadsorbed onto the surface of liposomes showed the dependency of proteinamount on cancer type (FIG. 3A-F). The protein corona composition at thesurface of three liposomes was evaluated by liquid chromatography-tandemmass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) in which 876 known proteins were defined.The contributions of individual proteins and their categories (i.e.,complement, coagulation, tissue leakage, lipoproteins, acute phase,immunoglobulins, and other plasma proteins) to the corona compositionwere defined (FIG. 3A-F). The results demonstrated associations betweenthe protein composition and not only the cancer type but also the typeof liposomes. The mechanism behind this variation is that the highsurface-to-volume ratio of the nanoparticles provides a uniqueopportunity for a wide range of human plasma proteins (highly abundantproteins, less-abundant plasma proteins, and very rare proteins) toparticipate in the corona composition, without need for depletion ofhighly abundant proteins, and without a direct correlation to plasmaprotein concentrations. Furthermore, in our system, conformationalchanges in plasma proteins can also change the protein coronacomposition, via significantly altering the interaction site of proteinswith nanoparticles. These characteristics make the protein coronaprofile unique among other approaches developed for the analysis ofproteins in human plasma.

The protein corona compositions at the surface of liposomes contained awide range of human plasma proteins including highly abundant proteins(e.g., albumin, transferrin, complement proteins, apolipoproteins, andalpha-2-macroglobulin) and very rare proteins (defined as <100 ng/ml)such as transforming growth factor beta-1-induced transcript 1 protein(˜10 ng/ml), fructose-bisphosphate aldolase A (˜20 ng/ml), thioredoxin(˜18 ng/ml), and L-selectin (˜92 ng/ml). We also identified 388 proteinswithout a known previous plasma concentrations(http://plasmaproteomedatabase.org/). The obtained protein informationwas then analyzed by a machine learning approach to probe the capacityof our protein corona nanosystem for robust and accurate cancerdetection.

Development of Classifier to Detect and Discriminate Among Cancers UsingProtein Corona Nanosystem Outcomes.

To evaluate the ability of the protein corona nanosystem to detectvarious cancers, we used proteomic data collected from the 3 distinctliposomes on 29 plasma samples (5 patients each from 5 cancer types; and4 healthy samples) to train a classifier, specifically an algorithm thatreceives array measurements from a patient and outputs one of six labels(either one of the five cancer types, or healthy). Before training theclassifier, raw data from the 3 nanoparticles were first ‘de-noised’ viaa low-rank tensor factorization discussed in depth in a later section.This de-noising implicitly mitigates the significant variabilityobserved in individual corona elements. We then trained a random forestclassifier, a popular non-linear classification algorithm, on theresulting de-noised data.

We tested the accuracy of this classifier on 16 blind samples (3patients each from 5 cancer types; and 1 healthy sample). We measuredoverall classification accuracy for the task of correctly assigningthese blind samples to one of the six labels, along with sensitivity andspecificity for each of the five cancer types separately (Table 4). Dueto the relatively small number of plasma samples (45 in total), and toensure the robustness of our results, we performed this procedure(training a random forest classifier on 29 samples and measuringaccuracy, sensitivities and specificities on the remaining 16 samples) atotal of 1000 times. The training and tests sets in each of the 1000replications of the experiment were chosen randomly from amongst allclass-stratified partitions of the data. This approach allows us tocalculate unbiased estimates of the p-value for the classificationaccuracies we report (see Table 4). Specifically, the last row of Table4 shows that the average overall accuracy across the 1000 replicationswas 96.2%, or equivalently an overall error of 3.8%. We also observe ap-value of 0.04 for the null hypothesis that the overall classificationerror is lower than 87.5%, and therefore we can reject this nullhypothesis with 95% confidence. Sensitivities for the five individualcancer types range from 87.4% to 100.0%, and individual specificitiesrange from 97.0% to 100.0%.

TABLE 4 Overall classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.Overall classification accuracy for protein corona nanosystem with one,two, and three liposomes (Column 2). Both classification accuracy andthe associated p-values improve with additional liposomes. Individualsensitivity and specificity for glioblastoma, lung, meningioma, myeloma,and pancreatic cancers (Columns 3-12) also show that sensitivity andspecificity improve with additional liposomes. Experimental results areaveraged over 1000 independent draws of a training set comprising 29plasmas, with evaluation on the remaining 16 plasmas. p-values are forthe null hypothesis of a classification error lower than 87.5%.Glioblastoma Lung Meningioma Myeloma Pancreatic Array Size AccuracySens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. One 86.0(0.43) 80.1 96.5 85.9 98.4 83.9 96.3 88.1 97.1 89.6 97.7 Two 92.4 (0.18)89.6 97.5 94.0 99.5 91.6 96.2 99.9 99.6 85.8 99.9 Three 96.2 (0.04)100.0 98.9 94.0 100.0 98.5 97.0 100.0 100.0 87.4 99.5

The Value of Multi-Liposomes in the Protein Corona Nanosystem

To assess the importance of including multi-liposomes in the proteincorona nanosystem, we repeated the entire classification procedure using1000 different splits of the data into training and testing samples, butthis time using data measured from only a single liposome. This was donefor each of the three liposomes, and the results are reported in thefirst row of Table 4. Relative to the entire array including all threeliposomes, the single-liposome arrays showed significantly loweraccuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. We also re-performed theprocedure for sets of two liposomes (there are three such unique sets);these results are found in the second row of Table 4. The two-liposomesystems are more accurate than a one-liposome system, but still weakerthan the entire array of three liposomes. Overall, this indicates thevalue of changes in the corona composition pattern between differentliposomes and the necessity of including such multiple observations.

Variable and Protein Importance and Stability

The random forest model also yields an importance score for eachvariable (i.e. each liposome-protein pair). This score essentiallymeasures how important that variable was in discriminating patients ofdifferent cancer types. On an individual ‘tree’ of the random forest,the importance score of any variable used in constructing the tree isdefined as the proportion of the training set that lies in the ‘leaves’of nodes utilizing that variable (variables not used in constructing thetree are assigned a score of zero); then the overall importance scorefor a variable is the average of its importance scores on each tree.

For different biological families of proteins (the same as those used inFIG. 3A-F), we calculated the overall importance in discriminatingdifferent cancer types (FIG. 10A, (a)-(c)). The results suggest thatdifferent families of proteins are important in detecting differentcancers. For example, acute phase proteins were relatively important indetecting meningioma, and lipoproteins were relatively important indetecting glioblastoma. Notably, these variations were distinct from thevariations in the percentage of each category adsorbed onto theliposomes (FIG. 10A, (d)-(f)). Interestingly, these results are in goodagreement with the biological function of these protein categories. Forexample, it is well-accepted that lipid metabolisms are substantiallyaltered in glioblastoma compared to the healthy tissue, which may be themain reason for the observed substantial changes in the interaction oflipoproteins with liposomes (FIGS. 2C and 10A). Details on the numbersof identified proteins and unique proteins in the corona composition ofdifferent liposomes and their combinations are provided FIG. 10B.

We also calculated the most important overall proteins (FIG. 10C andTable 5). These proteins were detected in combinations of all threeliposomes, again showing the critical role of multi-liposomes in thenanosystem. We also evaluate the robustness of this set of ‘important’proteins across the classifiers estimated on the 1000 splits of trainingdata discussed earlier. Specifically, FIG. 10B shows the 25th to 75thpercentiles of the importance scores for the 30 most important proteinson average. These show that the set of important proteins is robust tothe split of data used for model training. Among these most importantproteins (see Table 5), some have been recognized as playing criticalroles in cancer development. For example, Ficolins (both Ficolin 2 andFicolin 3) are serum pattern recognition molecules with opsonicproperties with a substantial capacity to regulate complementactivation. The serum concentrations of Ficolin 3 have been demonstratedto be higher in patients with ovarian cancer than in healthy subjects.Moreover, Ficolin 3 was identified in a differential proteomic analysisof prostate cancer serum, suggesting a role for this protein in prostatecancer as well. On the other hand, it is well established thatApolipoprotein A2 and its isoforms are overexpressed in prostate cancerserum and that the concentration of acute-phase proteins (e.g.,complement proteins) can change by 25% in the presence of inflammatorydisorders such as cancer. A clear association between cancer and thehemostatic system has long been documented. Hemostasis modulates bloodflow by regulating the adhesion of platelets and deposition of fibrin.Several proteins involved in hemostasis have been connected to theregulation of angiogenesis. Among these, fibrinogen is the main proteinin the hemostasis process and has been found in many tumors; itmodulates angiogenesis and tumor growth and has been implicated inmetastasis formation. Indeed, plasma levels of fibrinogen have been usedto forecast clinical outcomes in patients with non-metastatic renal cellcarcinoma, and to predict distant metastasis in pancreatic cancer.

TABLE 5 Information about the most important overall proteins, found tobe detected on combinations of all three liposomes. Uniprot entryProtein Amount in name description Function plasma* FCN3 Ficolin-3complement activation, lectin 1 μg/ml pathway SAA4 Serum amyloidchemoattractant activity 30 μg/ml A-4 protein CBPN Carboxypeptidaseprotects the body from 720 ng/ml N catalytic chain vasoactive andinflammatory peptides containing C-terminal Arg or Ly APOA2Apolipoprotein acute inflammatory response, 750 μg/ml A2 lipid transportCO7 Complement regulator of innate and 2.6 μg/ml component C7 adaptiveimmune response FHR5 Complement complement activation, 11 ng/ml factorH-related alternative pathway protein 5 COF1 Cofilin-1 actincytoskeleton 140 ng/ml organization HABP2 Hyaluronan- serine-typeendopeptidase 1.1 μg/ml binding protein 2 activity IGHG1 Immunoglobulinantigen binding N.A. heavy constant gamma 1 IGHG3 Immunoglobulin antigenbinding N.A. heavy constant gamma 3 IGHG2 Immunoglobulin antigen bindingN.A. heavy constant gamma 2 RET4 Retinol-binding retinol transporter 580μg/ml protein 4 VTNC Vitronectin cell adhesion 35 μg/ml GRP78 78 kDaglucose- ATPase activity 100 ng/ml regulated protein KV118 Ig kappachain Antigen binding N.A. V-I region WEA CPN2 Carboxypeptidaseregulation of complement 2 μg/ml N subunit 2 activation COL11Collectin-11 mannose binding, N.A. complement activation MASP1Mannan-binding complement activation, lectin 240 ng/ml lectin serinepathway protease 1 FIBB Fibrinogen beta hemostasis 706 μg/ml chain FIBAFibrinogen alpha hemostasis 2.5 mg/ml chain C1S Complement C1sregulation of complement 50 μg/ml subcomponent activation FGL1Fibrinogen-like hemostasis 2.3 ng/ml protein 1 VWF von Willebrandhemostasis 110 μg/ml factor CO6 Complement regulation of complement 40μg/ml component C6 activation IGHA1 Immunoglobulin antigen binding N.A.heavy constant alpha 1 IGLL5 Immunoglobulin antigen binding N.A.lambda-like polypeptide 5 CO8A Complement regulation of complement 70-90μg/ml component C8 activation alpha chain K1C14 Keratin, type Istructural constituent of 210 ng/ml cytoskeletal 14 cytoskeleton CRPC-reactive complement activation, 2 μg/ml protein classical pathway CO8GComplement regulation of complement 1.1 μg/ml component C8 activationgamma chain *The concentrations are values obtained using spectralcounting from the plasma proteome database(www.plasmaproteomedatabase.org).

To further probe the role of the important proteins identified by ourmachine learning approach, we searched for them in the Open Targetsdatabase, a platform for therapeutic target identification andvalidation. That database calculates a disease-association score foreach protein based on evidence from various other databases (includingGWAS Catalog, UniProt, Gene2Phenotype, Cancer Gene Census, IntOGen,Europe PMC, and Reactome) to derive a score on a scale of 0 (lowest) to1.0 (highest) of disease association. Of the proteins listed, three havestrong associations with cancers. Hyaluronan Binding Protein has a verystrong general association (1.0) with cancers; Fibrinogen Beta Chain hasa moderately strong association (0.4) with lung cancer; while Keratin,Type 1 cytoskeletal 14 is strongly associated (0.72) with prostatecancer. Almost all the other proteins in Table 5 have some degree ofweak association (0.05-0.4) with various types of cancers. Hence,overall, the proteins have a linkage with known cancer associations.

Overcoming Variability in Single Measurements with Tensor Factorization

Due to significant variability in patient populations, along with noiseintroduced through measurement error, we found that any single proteinwas insufficient for classification. For each of the 100 most-abundantproteins (yielding 3*100=300 variables), we calculated the averageabsolute z-score of that proteins concentration in the observed coronaacross patients of each cancer type. A higher z-score for a cancer typeon a given protein indicates that this protein may be useful indetecting this cancer type. FIG. 11 (blue bars) shows a histogram ofthese average absolute z-scores for each cancer type and the healthygroup. We also measured average absolute z-scores for proteinspreviously linked to these specific cancer types, which are displayed inthe same histogram in FIG. 10 (light grey bars). Across all of thesehundreds of variables, only a single protein has an absolute z-scoreabove 2.0, and on only a single cancer type (Myeloma), suggesting thatno single protein suffices for accurate classification.

The tensor decomposition that precedes our construction of a randomforest effectively serves the role of computing a small number ofweighted averages of protein composition in the observed corona on agiven sample. This average is across all proteins and nanoparticles in agiven plasma sample, and serves the role of mitigating the variabilityin the observed concentration of any given protein. For example, in FIG.11 (long, black bars), the average absolute z-score for one of theseweighted averages is plotted for each cancer type. The absolute z-scoresof these weighted averages are significantly higher than those of anysingle variable. In addition to the intuition this provides for how ourapproach overcomes variations in a single protein across samples withthe same indication, this de-noising also materially impacts our abilityto classify. Absent de-noising, simply training a random forestclassifier on the raw corona data would yield a classification accuracyof 94% (at a p-value of 0.07) as opposed to 96.2% (at a p-value of 0.04)reported in Table 4. For the cohort data reported in Table 7 de-noisingenabled us to increase classification accuracy from 92% (at a p-value of0.04) to 94.1% (at a p-value of 0.01).

Dependence of Classification Accuracy on Data

Our final evaluation on the 45 non-cohort patients was of the value ofdata. Our original classifier was trained on 5 samples per cancer type.To measure the value of including more or less training data, werepeated the classification procedure (splitting the data into trainingand testing samples, training a classifier on the training samples, andmeasuring performance on the testing samples, all done 1000 times) for avarying number of training samples per class, ranging from four to six(Table 6. Classification accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity allincreased with increasing numbers of training samples. With six trainingsamples per class, overall accuracy reaches 96.8% (i.e. an overall errorrate of 3.2%). This strongly suggests that accuracy, sensitivity, andspecificity will continue to increase as more data are included intraining the classifier.

TABLE 6 Classification accuracy improves with more data. (Column 2)Overall classification error when the training set consists of four,five, and six samples from each cancer, and associated p-values. Bothclassification error and the associated p-values improve with additionalsamples from each cancer. (Columns 3-12) Sensitivity and specificity forglioblastoma, lung, meningioma, myeloma, and pancreatic cancers when thetraining set consists of four to six samples. Experimental results areaveraged over 1000 independent draws of a training set with four healthypatients, and four to six patients with each cancer type. p-values arefor the null hypothesis of at least two classification errors.Glioblastoma Lung Meningioma Myeloma Pancreatic # Samples Accuracy Sens.Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Four 94.4 (0.14)98.8 98.1 91.2 100.0 93.0 96.7 100.0 99.9 88.0 98.4 Five 96.2 (0.04)100.0 98.9 94.0 100.0 98.5 97.0 100.0 100.0 87.4 99.5 Six 96.8 (0.01)100.0 99.4 96.6 100.0 98.9 97.0 100.0 100.0 87.8 99.6Sampling of Low- and High-Abundance Plasma Proteins with Liposomeswithout the Requirement of Protein Depletion

The multi-liposome protein corona nanosystem, using machine-learningtechniques, produces a unique “fingerprint” protein pattern for eachtype of cancer and for healthy individuals. In pursuit of the mechanismunderlying the unique capacity of the protein corona in canceridentification and discrimination, we have thoroughly analyzed thecorona composition for the contribution of both high- and low-abundanceproteins, and compared those outcomes with the concentration of coronaproteins in human plasma. In this regard, the contribution of eachprotein (e.g., protein X) to the corona composition and plasma wasnormalized with respect to albumin using (total peptides of albumin inprotein corona)/(total peptides of protein X in protein corona) and(concentration of albumin in plasma)/(concentration of protein X inplasma), respectively. It is noteworthy that we manually searched theconcentrations of identified corona proteins in plasma using an onlineproteome database (http://plasmaproteomedatabase.org/). As the totalpeptides of the albumin in the protein corona are proportional toalbumin's total weight in the protein corona, dividing these peptides tothe peptides of protein X is comparable with the ratio of albuminconcentration to concentration of protein X in plasma. As shown in FIG.12, we found that the plasma concentrations vary over 10 orders ofmagnitude (in log-log scale), while the liposomes detect these sameproteins over 4-5 orders of magnitude. In other words, we revealed thatthe protein corona composition has a great capacity to concentrate awide range of low-abundance proteins (≤100 ng/mg) and very rare proteins(≤10 ng/mg). This means that obtaining data on highly abundant proteinsin the protein corona does not interfere with detection of peptidesderived from less-abundant and rare proteins. It is worth noting thatmost of the detected proteins are low-abundance, rare, orunknown/unreported proteins. Participation of the low-abundance proteinsin the corona composition is mainly due to the exchange of coronaproteins with low affinity for proteins with higher affinity and sloweradsorption kinetics.

Detection of low-abundance proteins in human plasma requires depletionsof highly abundant proteins and post-depletion plasma-fractionationstrategies; however, even using these depletion strategies, plasmaproteomics has not been robustly successful in early detection ofcancers. The results obtained with our system indicate that, in contrastto human plasma proteins, the protein corona composition contains a widerange of less-abundant and very rare plasma proteins, without need fordepletion (which may cause unintended removal of low-abundanceproteins/biomarkers). In addition, we found several proteins in theprotein corona whose concentrations in human plasma areunknown/unreported, possible due to their very low concentration inhuman plasma. More specifically, anionic, neutral, and cationicliposomes account for 323, 189, and 155 of proteins withunknown/unreported plasma concentration, respectively). The contributionof these proteins to the protein corona is indicated by the rectangularbox on the right in FIG. 12.

The use of multi-liposomes (with distinct surface properties) provides aunique opportunity to increase the detection depth of the low-abundantproteins and very rare proteins (see FIG. 12), which substantiallyenhanced the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive accuracy of theprotein corona nanosystem. Each liposome provided different patterns ofcontributed proteins with a strong dependency on cancer type.

Cancer Detection and Discrimination Among Cohort Samples

Finally, to investigate the ability of the protein corona nanosystem todetect cancers at very early stages, we used cohort plasma (obtainedfrom the NIH-funded Golestan Cohort Study; details are provided in theMethods section) from healthy people who were diagnosed several yearsafter plasma collection with pancreatic, lung, and brain cancers. Wefollowed the same procedure, performing 1000 experiments. In eachexperiment, we partitioned the data into 12 (4 each from 3 cancer types)training samples and 3 testing samples (one each from 3 cancer types).Observations were denoised via the previously described procedure, andthen a random forest classifier was trained on the training samples.Finally, overall accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were measured onthe test samples (Table 7). Overall accuracy was 94.1% (an error rate of5.9%), with a p-value of 0.01 for the null hypothesis of an overallaccuracy <66.7% (thus rejected with 95% confidence). Sensitivitiesacross the three cancer types ranged from 83.2% to 100.0%, andspecificities ranged from 91.6% to 100.0%. These relatively high valuessuggest that the protein corona array can successfully detect cancers attheir earliest stages.

TABLE 7 Overall Classification Accuracy, Sensitivity, and Specificityfor Cohort Samples. (Column 2) Overall classification accuracy for one,two, and three liposomes. Both classification error and the associatedp-values improve with the addition of liposomes to the nanosystem.(Columns 3-8) Sensitivity and Specificity for Brain, Lung, andPancreatic cancers, respectively. Again, sensitivity and specificityimprove with the addition of liposomes. Experimental results areaveraged over 1000 independent draws of a training set comprising 12patients, with evaluation of the remaining 3 patients. p-values are forthe null hypothesis of a classification accuracy <66.7%. Brain LungPancreatic Array Size Accuracy Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. Sens. Spec. One75.4 (0.23) 74.7 86.1 90.7 90.9 60.8 86.9 Two 80.5 (0.11) 92.3 89.7 76.392.1 73.1 88.9 Three 94.1 (0.01) 100.0 100.0 83.2 99.6 99.2 91.6

We also performed the same experiments with smaller subsets ofliposomes, including each liposome individually, and all three uniquesets of two liposomes. Again, overall accuracy, sensitivities andspecificities were shown to increase dramatically as the number ofliposomes increased, again indicating the value of the array system.

Discussion

No prior study using protein corona or any other approach forfractionation of the plasma proteome has enabled concurrent multi-cancerscreening with acceptable specificity, sensitivity, and predictiveaccuracy. This is the first time a sensor array has been developed withthe specificity, sensitivity and predictive accuracy for not onlycancer, but specific cancer subtypes.

The fractionation of the plasma proteome by the protein corona has beendemonstrated to be unrelated to the abundance of specific plasmaproteins and occurs instead via many factors including protein affinityfor the nanoparticle surface through a wide range of forces includingCoulomb forces, London dispersion, hydrogen-bond acidity and basicity,polarizability, lone-pair electrons, and protein-protein interactionsbetween participating proteins in the corona structure. Protein coronacomposition has been shown to be dynamic and initially dominated byabundant proteins including albumin, immunoglobulin, and fibrinogen,which together with 19 other proteins comprise over 99% of the proteinmass in the plasma proteome. The remaining 1% of the plasma proteome iscomprised of over 10,000 proteins; a subset of these proteins withhigher affinities and/or lower absorption kinetics for the nanoparticlesurface compete with the high-abundance proteins for inclusion in thecorona composition. In addition to the exchange of the proteins withhigher binding affinity for those with lower binding affinity at thesurface of nanoparticles, there is a chance for a contribution by otherlow-affinity proteins in the outer protein corona layer due to theirfavorable protein-protein interactions with the already-formed proteincorona layer. This means that the exchanged low-abundant proteins may beable to direct the formation of the protein corona toward adsorption ofmore low-abundance proteins.

Herein we analyze for the first time the relative concentration capacityof the protein corona in enriching low-abundance proteins (defined as<100 ng/ml), demonstrating that many of these proteins are atconcentrations <10 ng/ml and approaching 1 pg/ml. More importantly, weshow that many of these proteins play a crucial role in canceridentification and discrimination via machine-learning approaches. Therole of the protein corona in concentrating a wide range oflow-abundance and very rare proteins may go a long way towardsovercoming the main reasons behind the limited success of current massspectrometry techniques (including LC-MS/MS) in early detection ofcancers, as these techniques can detect proteins at a dynamic range of4-6 orders of magnitude. In other words, the protein corona compositionenables sampling across a vast dynamic range of the plasma proteome,which can substantially enhance the depth of protein coverage withoutprotein depletion. Since the protein corona obtained from a singlenanoparticle constitutes at most several hundred distinct proteins (asmall subset of the total proteome), we postulated that usingmulti-nanoparticles with distinct physiochemical properties might createadditional dimensions of proteomic information: 1) each additionalnanoparticle with distinct physicochemical properties potentiallyenables the recruitment of additional unique low-abundance proteins(FIG. 12); 2) corona proteins that overlap more than one nanoparticlesurface participate at different corona contribution percentages, andthus alter the concentration and identity of other participating coronaproteins; and 3^(rd)) both unique and overlapping corona proteininformation from each nanoparticle serve as unique variables, andtherefore provide more data to our machine learning approach. Combiningmore nanoparticles for plasma fractionating and proteomic analysisprovides significantly more information for cancer detection anddiscrimination with superior sensitivity, specificity, and predictionaccuracy compared to fewer nanoparticles (Table 4). Conceptually, ourmulti-nanoparticle approach is similar to the olfactory system, in whichthe specificity of odorant recognition originates from the pattern ofresponses from several hundred highly cross-reactive olfactoryreceptors, where any one receptor provides incomplete information butthe combination is highly specific in identifying a given odorant (i.e.,in humans ˜400 active receptors can detect and differentiate ˜10,000odorants, and in dogs ˜1200 active receptors can detect ˜1,000,000odorants). Similar approaches have also been used by other investigatorsto detect and differentiate among diverse families of analytes, variousfoods and beverages, pathogenic bacteria and fungi, biomolecules, andeven nanoparticles themselves.

Three different cross-reactive liposomes (with negative, neutral, andpositive surface charges) were used whose protein corona profiles weremeasured after exposure to the plasma of individual patients who had oneof five cancers: lung, pancreas, myeloma, meningioma, or glioblastoma.To identify and discriminate among cancers using the protein coronananosystem outcomes, we used a well-defined random forest machinelearning approach. We have designated 1000 different sets of samples astraining (i.e., plasmas with known cancers and healthy conditions) ortesting (i.e., blind plasmas) samples to ensure that our protein coronananosystem is robust and accurate for cancer detection with excellentpredictive accuracy. Although no one protein corona composition from asingle nanoparticle was specific for any particular cancer type withacceptable predictive accuracy (i.e., 86.0% with p-value of 0.43 for theclassification error lower than 87.5%), we found that the pattern ofcorona composition derived from the multi-liposomes provides a unique“fingerprint” for each type of cancer with excellent predictive accuracy(i.e., 96.2% with p-value of 0.04 for the classification error lowerthan 87.5%). These results, based on the deep analysis of the humanproteome using multi-liposome protein corona characterization andmachine learning, confirmed the promise of this system for unambiguousidentification and discrimination of cancers and error-freediscrimination against healthy subjects with excellent specificity (from97.0% to 100.0%).

To probe the capacity of the protein corona nanosystem for very earlydetection of cancers, cohort plasma samples were used. These sampleswere collected from healthy people who were diagnosed with lung,pancreas, or brain cancer eight years after plasma collection. Theoutcomes of the protein corona nanosystem, using plasma from 15 patientsin the cohort study, revealed that our approach accurately identifiedand discriminated cancers even in these pre-diagnosis cohort samples,for which cancer detection was not possible with current alternatives.In agreement with our findings on the fresh plasma samples,multi-liposome plasma sampling provided superior classification accuracy(94.1% vs. 75.4%) and specificity [i.e., brain (100.0% vs. 86.1%) lung(96.6% vs. 90.9%), and pancreatic (91.6% vs. 86.9%)] compared tosingle-liposome sampling. It is noteworthy that the protein coronaprofiles of the cohort samples were different compared to the previousfresh cancer samples. This is mainly because of the long-frozen storage(around 10 years) of the cohort samples, as the samples were collectedat the time of screening of healthy individuals. It is increasinglyaccepted that long-term storage of plasma samples can strongly affectthe concentration and integrity of a subset of proteins, in turnaltering the protein corona composition and decreasing the sensitivityof our protein corona nanosystem. Therefore, the maximal sensitivity ofthe nanosystem may be realized when using fresh plasma, either as partof a cancer screening or cancer work-up after diagnosis. The value inthe latter setting may be that changes in the protein corona patternover time may provide valuable information relevant to early tumorrecurrence or the presence of residual disease after tumor resection.

In summary, we present proof-of-concept that the multi-nanoparticleprotein corona nanosystem has considerable potential for increasing thedepth of protein detection and thus a unique capacity to accuratelydetect and discriminate cancers even at their earliest stages, whenexisting technologies fail to detect disease. The multi-nanoparticleprotein corona pattern derived from our protein corona nanosystemprovides a unique multivariate “fingerprint” for cancer detection, whichis not possible when the protein corona of only a single nanoparticle isanalyzed. Furthermore, the protein corona pattern represents thecollective enrichment of a wide range of plasma proteins (including bothabundant and rare proteins) using distinct nanoparticles, clearlydistinguishing it from other multivariate whole-plasma proteomicapproaches that have failed to produce suitable results for early cancerdetection. The depth of protein detection (the main limitation ofprotein analysis in human plasma) and predictive accuracy of thenanosystem may be further enhanced by using additional nanoparticleswith different physicochemical properties. The successful predictiveoutcome of our machine-learning and protein-corona characterizationapproach for both blind fresh plasmas and retrospective cohort plasmasprovides a suitable foundation for subsequent prospective studies incancer. Furthermore, the utility of the multi-nanoparticle proteincorona nanosystem can be applied to other important human diseases forwhich early detection can significantly improve both longevity andquality of life.

Liposomes were prepared as described in Example 1A.

Human plasma collection, preparation, and storage was performed asdescribed in Example 1A.

Cohort plasma samples were prepared as described in Example 1A.

Transmission electron microscopy (TEM). Liposome formulations have beencharacterized by TEM as reported previously. Briefly, 10 μl of eachsample was deposited onto Formvar-coated grids, negatively stained using1% uranyl acetate, washed with ultrapure water, and air-dried.Measurements were performed with a Zeiss Libra 120, and image analysiswas performed with Image) software.

Size and zeta-potential was determined as detailed in Example 1A.

Protein assay was carried out as described in Example 1A.

Protein identification and quantification was performed as in Example1A. Unweighted spectrum counts (USC) were used to assess the consistencyof biological replicates in quantitative analysis, and normalizedspectrum counts (NC S) were used to retrieve protein abundance.

Statistical Analysis. All statistical analyses in the main text wereperformed in Python using the scikit-learn, numpy, and scipy packages,and figures and graphs were created using the bokeh package in Python,along with Microsoft Excel, XLSTAT, and MATLAB.

Data matrices. For all 60 plasma samples (45 non-cohort and 15 cohort),labeled as i=1, . . . , 60, a data matrix X_(i) (with 3 rows and −900columns) was generated such that each row of the matrix corresponds tothe protein abundances of a single nanoparticle, as obtained from theprotein corona nanosystem. As a preprocessing step, we converted theprotein abundances to relative protein abundances (RPA) by normalizingthe rows of all of the matrices.

Classification and Clustering

Tensor factorization. We treated the data as a three-mode tensor, thefirst two modes corresponding to nanoparticles and proteins, and thethird mode corresponding to plasma samples; this is essentiallyequivalent to stacking the observation matrices corresponding to eachsample, X_(i), on top of each other. The data were de-noised via a lowTucker rank tensor factorization (135,136,137) using code implemented inPython for this project (available for academic use upon request). Eachmatrix X_(i), is approximated by a tensor decomposition that takes theform

X_(i)˜US_(i)V^(T),

where U is a matrix whose rows can be viewed as latent featurescorresponding to each of the nanoparticles, and similarly V is a matrixwhose rows can be viewed as latent features corresponding to each of theproteins; these latent features are shared across all of the datamatrices. Finally, each S_(i) is a matrix encoding interactions betweennanoparticle and protein features, and these are allowed to be uniquebetween samples. We estimated this decomposition in two steps: we (a)estimated U and V via a truncated singular-value decomposition on themode-1 and mode-2 unfoldings of the tensor, and then given theseestimates, we (b) fit each S_(i) matrix separately via a least-squarescalculation.

Random forest classification. The random forest model is a well-knownmachine learning algorithm for classification. A random forest is madeup of multiple decision trees that each make simple classificationdecisions based on relatively few variables. These trees are created (or“trained”) with different, randomly drawn subsets of variables so thatit is likely that no two trees are identical. Given a new sample, eachtree is traversed top-down until a set of training samples is reached atthe bottom. Using the forest as a whole for classification amounts tohaving the multiple decision trees “vote” on a label (in this case, oneof five cancer types, or healthy), where each tree's vote is made fromthe labels of the bottom set of training samples. For our own algorithm,each random forest consisted of 1000 decision trees and was trainedusing the scikit-learn package. Importance scores were also calculatedusing the same package.

Example 2. Additional Sensor Array Construction for Detection ofDiseases

A sensor array consisting of 12 different cross-reactive nanoparticlesincluding three liposomes, three superparamagnetic iron oxidenanoparticles, and six gold nanoparticles are made. These types ofliposomes (DOPG (1,2-dioleoyl-sn-glycero-3-phospho-(1′-rac-glycerol)),DOTAP (1,2-Dioleoyl-3-trimethylammonium-propane)-DOPE(dioleoylphosphatidylethanolamine), and CHOL (DOPC-Cholesterol)) withnegative, neutral, and positive surface charges are synthesizedaccording to our previous reports. Ultra-uniform PEG-coatedsuperparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles 20 μm in size and of variousPEG molecular weights (i.e., 300, 3000, and 6000) are obtained fromMicromod®. Gold nanoparticles, with core size of ˜2 nm, and differentsurface functionalities are synthesized.

All of the nanoparticles are the same size but have different surfaceproperties, which are expected to form significantly different proteincorona compositions in response to the plasma of patients developingvarious types of cancers. The sensor array probes the capability of theprotein corona sensor array to identify and discriminate among cancertypes via the patient's plasma proteins, as described in Example 1.

Samples from a wide range of cancers including lung, pancreas, myeloma,meningioma, glioblastoma, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, andgastric adenocarcinoma are probed. Protein corona arrays based ondifferent nanoparticles (liposomes, iron oxide, and gold) are designedto probe the variation in biomolecule fingerprint among various cancertypes. The sensor assay will also allow for the identification ofproteins that are markers for specific types of cancers, including newand unknown biomarkers for different cancer cell types. The patternrecognition that can be determined based on the different types ofcancer or the stage of cancer.

A wide range of human plasmas from healthy people that were laterdiagnosed with various types of cancers several years after plasmacollection will be analyzed. The plasma samples were collected through aNIH-funded cohort study, named the Golestan Cohort Study, performed bythe National Cancer Institute (NCI) in the USA, the International Agencyfor Research on Cancer (IARC) in France, and the Tehran University ofMedical Sciences (TUMS) in Iran. This study involved the collection andstorage of plasma from 50,000 healthy subjects. Over 1,000 of thesesubjects went on to develop various types of cancers in subsequentyears. The samples are stored at IARC and being used by our team foranalysis. These important plasma samples provide us a unique opportunityto probe the capacity of our innovative protein corona sensor array forearly detection of cancers. In addition, we will also assess andidentify proteins useful for the identification and discrimination ofthese cancers.

We believe that the outcomes from applying this innovative sensor arrayto cohort plasma samples will not only be instrumental in the detectionand screening of cancers at early stages but also help identify novelprotein markers involved in cancer development. Our sensor arraycomponent choices have more specific capability compared to otherdeveloped methods to provide fingerprints for a wide variety of proteinsin a non-specific, cross-reactive manner for identification anddiscrimination of cancers.

The Hard Corona Profiles of the Sensor Array Elements are Probed UsingPlasma from Patients with Cancers at Intermediate and Advanced Stages:

The composition of the protein corona that forms on the surface ofsensor array elements is strongly dependent on the physicochemicalproperties of those nanoparticles and, at the same time, can be stronglyaffected by the type of disease present in the donor of the human plasmaused for incubation. To prepare the corona-coated nanoparticles, the 12nanoparticles prepared are incubated with human plasma (separately) ofnine types of cancers (lung, pancreas, myeloma, myeloid leukemia,meningioma, glioblastoma, breast, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma,and gastric adenocarcinoma) and isolated from free proteins via awell-defined centrifugation approach. Centrifugation is usuallyperformed at 13000 g for 30 min at 15° C. The supernatant will beremoved and the collected particles would be redispersed in 500microlitter of PBS. The procedure will be repeated to get the looselyattached proteins removed. In order to remove the loosely attachedproteins from the surface of nanoparticles, the collected nanoparticleswill be redispersed in cold PBS (15° C.) and collected viacentrifugation. The size and charge of the corona-coated nanoparticleswill then be determined using DLS/Nanosight and compared to theirinitial values obtained in buffer. Quantitative evaluation of the totalprotein adsorbed onto the nanoparticles will be performed via the BCA orNanoOrange assay, while qualitative shotgun proteomics analysis identifythe proteins adsorbed onto the surface of the 12 nanoparticles. Briefly,after separation of proteins from the surface of nanoparticles(according to the protocol (Saha, K.; Rahimi, M.; Yazdani, M.; Kim, S.T.; Moyano, D. F.; Hou, S.; Das, R.; Mout, R.; Rezaee, F.; Mahmoudi, M.ACS nano 2016, 10, (4), 4421-4430, incorporated by reference), proteinsare injected into a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS)apparatus. The proteins are identified from the resulting data throughscreening of relevant databases. To obtain the total number of LC-MS/MSspectra for all peptides attributed to a matched protein,semi-^(a)Polydispersity index from cumulant fitting quantitativeassessment of the protein amount will be conducted through spectralcounting (SpC). The normalized SpC (NpSpC) amounts of each proteinidentified in the LC-MS/MS spectra will be calculated using thefollowing equation:

${NpSpCk}{= {\left( \frac{\frac{SpC}{\left( M_{w} \right)_{k}}}{\sum_{t = 1}^{n}\left( \frac{Spc}{\left( M_{{w)}_{t}} \right.} \right)} \right) \times 100}}$

where NpSpCk is the normalized percentage of spectral count (i.e., rawcounts of ions) for protein k, SpC is the spectral count, and Mw is themolecular weight (in kDa) of the protein k.

Develop Supervised and Unsupervised Clustering Analysis to Identify andDiscriminate Among Cancers Using the Sensor Array Outcomes:

In order to investigate whether protein corona fingerprints (PCFs) ofvarious sensor elements could be utilized as a biosensors and formunique patterns for different diseases (biomolecule corona signature),we have applied focused classification approaches to proteomic data fromthree liposomes' protein corona composition (cationic, anionic, andneutral) as described in Example 1.

Example 3. Conjugation of Nanoparticles to the Substrate to Make SensorArrays

Different types of particles may be used as nanoscale sensor elements inthe practice of this invention. Further, different methods ofconjugation of the nanoscale sensor elements to the substrate areprovided. Additionally, the nanoscale sensor elements may be attached tosubstrate in different patterns.

Specific examples of different configurations of sensor elements ondifferent substrates are exemplified in FIG. 15-43.

Example 4. Sensor Array Comprising Silica and Polystyrene Nanoparticlesfor Screening for Cancer

This Example demonstrates that a sensor array of the present inventionwith different nanoparticles than those used in Example 1 is still ableto detect cancer samples from healthy patient samples.

Utilizing the experimental protocol of Example 1, a sensor array wasdesigned using functionalized silica and polystyrene particles. In thisExample, a total of six nanoparticles: two nanoparticles types, i.e.polystyrene (P) and silica (S), with three different surfacefunctionalization, i.e. none, amine modification and carboxylmodification (P—NH2, P—COOH, S—NH2 and S—COOH), were used.

Characterization of bare polystyrene and silica nanoparticles withdifferent functionalization (none, amine modification (NK2) and carboxylmodification (COOH) is shown in FIGS. 44A-44D demonstrating their sizes,DLS and zeta potential of the bare particles and TEM images. Thecharacterization of protein corona-coated polystyrene and silicananoparticles with different functionalization is demonstrated in FIGS.45A-45D with their sizes, DLS, zeta potential and TEMs of theprotein-corona loaded polystyrene and silica nanoparticles.

The 6 nanoparticle sensor array was contacted with the plasma of healthyindividuals or patients with rectum cancer, breast cancer, bladdercancer, thyroid cancer, uterus cancer, ovary cancer, kidney cancer (5patients per cancer) as depicted in FIG. 46 by the method described inExample 1. The protein corona profiles of polystyrene and silicananoparticles (100 μm) were analyzed by SDS PAGE. Comparison of theprotein corona of plain, amine-modified and carboxyl-modified particlesby SDS PAGE is shown in FIG. 47.

The protein corona profiles for healthy plasma for polystyrene andsilica nanoparticles (100 μm) analyzed by SDS-PAGE is shown in FIG. 48.Comparison of the protein corona of plain, amine-modified andcarboxyl-modified particles.

The data was analyzed as described in Example 1. The statisticalanalysis and clustering results are depicted in FIG. 49. As depicted,the healthy individuals are able to be identified and classified ascompared to the cancer patients (healthy controls are in the orthogonalspace vs the cancer patient samples as seen in FIG. 49).

This Example demonstrates that this sensor array using a sixnanoparticle array can discriminate and detect a patient with cancerfrom a healthy individual.

Materials: Three differently functionalized silica particles werepurchased by Kisker-Products (https://www.kisker-biotech.com/); threedifferently functionalized polystyrene particles were purchased byPolyscience, Inc. (http://www.polysciences.com/). All the particles hadthe same size (100 μm). Their morphology, average size, polydispersityindex (PDI) and zeta potential were characterized by TEM, DLS and zetapotential measurements.

Experimental info: 1h incubation in 50% human healthy plasma. SDS PAGE:4-20% acrylamide 45 min 40 mA/gel. Staining: Colloidal Blue Comassieovernight. nanoparticles used: 0.5 mg).

Example 5. Protein Corona Sensor Array Nanosystem Identifies CoronaryArtery Disease

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common type of heart diseaseand represents the leading cause of death in both men and women. Earlydetection of CAD is crucial in preventing death, prolong the survivaland ameliorate quality of life of patients. This Example describes thenon-invasive, sensor array nanosystem containing six nanoparticles forultraprecise detection of CAD using specific PC pattern recognition.While the PC of a single nanoparticle do not provide the requiredspecificity, the multivariate PCs across six distinct nanoparticles withdifferent surface chemistries provides the desirable information toselectively discriminate each cardiovascular condition underinvestigation.

CAD is a chronic condition which starts during adolescence andprogresses gradually throughout the affected person's entire life. It ischaracterized by the presence of atherosclerotic plaques in the coronaryarteries. The genesis of atherosclerosis lies in the dysfunction of theendothelium: when subjected to stress stimuli and inflammatory factors(e.g. oxidative stress and hemodynamic forces), endothelial cellsexpress surface adhesion molecules inducing the recruitment ofcirculating leukocytes and low density lipoproteins (LDL) containingcholesterol.⁵ These events induce the formation of the atheroscleroticplaques, which narrows the coronary artery and thus impairs the bloodflow. Depending on the velocity of the plaque's development and on theseverity of the artery obstruction, the symptoms can culminate inmyocardial infarction.⁵

An accurate and in-time diagnosis of CAD in at-risk subjects is veryimportant to promptly start an ad hoc therapy and avoid furthercomplications. Coronary angiography is to date the most accurate andtrustable method for CAD diagnosis. However, inserting a catheter intoan artery of the arm (or neck or upper tight) up to the heart isinvasive, costly and causes many side effects, including infections,injury to the catheterized artery, allergy and excessive bleeding.Therefore, there is an urgent need to develop new tests for CADdetection. While several inflammatory biomarkers have been reported asuseful for diagnosis, unfortunately, however, none of them are used inclinical practice, highlighting the still very prevalent need for newdiagnostic tests. The inventors have developed a nano-based blood testas a new tool for diagnosis of CAD.

As demonstrated in the previous Examples for cancer, personalized PCsact as fingerprint of a given plasma condition. This Example uses thesame approach to accurately define the formation of the atheroscleroticplaque, through its induced changes in plasma composition. Indeed, theplaque-associated cells (e.g. foam cells, macrophages, mast cells,monocytes, and T-cells) shed a wide range of biomolecules (e.g.,cytokines, proteases, and vasoactive biomolecules) to the blood,²² andthus may induce changes in the pattern of PC composition at the surfaceof various nanoparticles in respect to the PC of patients with no plaqueformation.

This Example analyzed the PC formed around nanoparticles using plasmaderived from i) patients who are diagnosed with CAD following coronaryangiography (CAD), ii) patients with symptoms who had coronaryangiography and their coronary vessels were found healthy (NO CAD), iii)restenosis (recurrence of CAD after treatment) and iv) healthyvolunteers with no risk factors (e.g. family history, tobacco use,obesity, hypertension) for cardiovascular disease (CONTROL).

In order to have a wider spectrum of adsorbed proteins, the Example usedsix commercially available nanoparticles as the sensor array elements,with different composition and surface chemistry and/orfunctionalization, creating a 6 nanoparticles PC-based sensor array ableto be used as an easy and non-invasive diagnostic test. This noveldiagnostic CAD test to be used as pre-non-invasive screening for at-riskpatients. Notably, these results demonstrated that PC patterns allowedthe ultra-accurate discrimination between CAD, NO CAD, restenosis, andcontrol patients, thus providing a novel, precise, non-invasive neverdeveloped before tool for blood-based diagnosis of CAD.

Results

In this Example, a total of six nanoparticles: two nanoparticles types,i.e. polystyrene (P) and silica (S), with three different surfacefunctionalization, i.e. none, amine modification and carboxylmodification (P—NH2, P—COOH, S—NH2 and S—COOH), as described in FIG. 50were used. The size, zeta potential and morphology of nanoparticlesbefore and after incubation in plasma have been measured to comparedifferences in results between the synthetic identity of barenanoparticles and their corresponding biological identity (PC-coatednanoparticles). Dynamic light scattering analysis showed that barenanoparticles were all highly monodispersed, as demonstrated bypolydispersity index 0.02, and homogeneous in size of about 100 nm,being in the range from 93 μm up to 120 μm (FIG. 50A). Following 1 hincubation with plasma of patients, sizes of all nanoparticles increaseddue to the presence of a layer of adsorbed proteins (PC), whosethickness and composition have been demonstrated to be dependent onprotein concentration, surface properties and size of nanoparticles. Allbare nanoparticles had negative surface charge (FIG. 50B), with thoseamine-functionalized slightly less negative than others due to thecontribution of positive amine groups. These results were in line withspecifications provided by the supplier and other studies. Modificationwith amine groups was not sufficient to switch the surface charge ofsilica and polystyrene nanoparticles characterized by all negativelycharged residues on their surfaces at physiological pH.

Once exposed to plasma, all the surface charges became less negative(from −5 mV to −25 mV) due to the charge of most plasma proteins atphysiological pH. Overall, the physicochemical properties of thePC-coated nanoparticles showed similar trends, being always bigger andless negative than their bare counterparts, irrespective of the plasmaused for the incubation. However, when incubated with NO CAD plasma, Pand S nanoparticles exhibited an increase in size of ≈85 μm, bigger thanthat showed using plasma of other conditions (40-50 μm). On the otherhand, PC thickness of S—NH2 nanoparticles incubated with CAD plasma wasbigger (≈40 μm) than those derived from incubation of the samenanoparticles with other plasma types (≈30 μm). Transmission electronmicroscopy showed that nanoparticles did not change their morphology andstructure after incubation in plasma (FIG. 50C). Furthermore, anincrease in the size after coating was observed, thus confirming resultsobtained by dynamic light scattering. Protein concentrations ofdifferent PCs were evaluated by Bradford assay, showing that overall allsilica nanoparticles adsorbed less proteins in the PC than polystyrenenanoparticles (FIG. 51A). This observation was confirmed throughanalysis of PCs by 1D-SDS PAGE. Five patients with CAD, NO CAD and norisk for CAD (CONTROL) have been used to collect plasma and the PCsobtained for all nanoparticles have been resolved onto Comassie stainedSDS PAGE gels (FIG. 51B). Gels have been analyzed by densitometry anddifferences in the amount of proteins in the CAD, NO CAD and CONTROL PCsof the same nanoparticle have been detected (FIG. 51C, arrows). In somecases, we also noticed the presence and/or absence of some proteins inspecific PCs (FIG. 51C, blue arrows). These results confirm that theformation of atherosclerosis plaque induces changes in plasmacomposition and, consequently, differences in PC. The protein coronawere analyzed by LC-MS/MS analysis. More than 150 proteins have beenidentified in each PC-coated nanoparticle sample. In addition, spectralcounting values, which represent the total number of fragmentationspectra for all peptides attributed to a specific protein, have beenused to obtain information about the abundance of the proteins and,consequently, the percentage contribution of each identified proteins inthe PCs. Differences in the percentage contribution of the top 20abundant proteins in the PCs are reported in FIG. 52. The resultsdemonstrated correlation between the PC composition, the plasmacondition, the type of nanoparticle and the surface functionalization.

Data obtained from all samples have been collected, analyzed andclassified: a key for each measurement was created by concatenatingnanoparticle, surface modification, type of plasma and label. Proteinsidentified with less than 2 peptides were removed from consideration andTIBCO Spotfire Analyst 7.6.1 was used to pivot the data so that rowswere identified by protein accession, columns by the key and valuescontaining the percentage contribution.

Besides mathematical analysis, we analyzed the presence of exclusiveproteins in the corona of a given condition. To do this, we created VennDiagrams which facilitate the research of common and unique proteins inbig data set of proteins or genes. The PCs of each nanoparticle havebeen analyzed separately, for a total of 6 classifications. We lookedfor exclusive proteins by comparing proteins common to all 5patients-derived PCs for CAD, NO CAD and control. Our results show thatfor each nanoparticle used in this study, various specific proteins areexclusively identified in specific PC patterns. Among these, severalproteins involved in the regulation of complement activation (complementfactor H related protein 3, complement component C8 gamma) wereexclusively identified in the PC pattern of CAD patients. This result isin line with the recently described role of complement activation in thepathogenesis of cardiovascular diseases (development of atherosclerosis,plaque rupture, and thrombosis). Another example is represented byapolipoprotein (a), considered an attractive biomarker candidate for useinto clinical practice for CAD, which we have detected exclusively inthe PC pattern of CAD patients. Apolipoprotein (a) is the main componentof lipoprotein (a), is well known to be subjected to proteolyticalcleavage and its fragments accumulate in atherosclerotic plaques.

We confirmed the accuracy of the approach in discrimination of patientswith CAD and NO CAD by analyzing 9 blind plasma samples (3 per eachcondition and 3 control). The PC was formed around the 6 nanoparticlesof our PC sensor array nanosystem. Then, proteins in the PCs have beenidentified by LC-MS/MS (Supporting Information) and the results havebeen analyzed using the same classification and clustering approaches.

Statistical and data analysis is graphically represented in FIG. 54showing the discrete isolation of the classification of the CAD, NO CADand CONTROL (no risk of CAD).

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the accuracy of a 6 nanoparticles PCsensor array for the detection of CAD. The PC sensor array nanosystemdeveloped in this work demonstrated to also be sensitive and accurate inthe discrimination of CAD, restenosis, NO CAD, and healthy individual,which further showing its own great potential value as technologyplatform to be used in clinical setting. Indeed, despite the presence ofmany symptoms typically associated to atherosclerotic plaque, the NO CADgroup of patients under investigation in this work did not have anyobstruction in their arteries.

The PC patterns resulting from this platform represent a uniquemultivariate fingerprint, which is more accurate and broad-spectrum thanthose obtained using the PCs of a single nanoparticle. The approachpresented here may be of great value for the detection of not only CAD,but also other various human diseases, improving many patients' qualityof life. Especially due to the non-invasiveness of the test, we envisionthat such a test would be used more willingly and more frequently thanangiography by patients. And unlike angiography, this test is easy toadminister and has no side effects, allowing patients to check thestatus of arteries from the very first symptoms, and have significantlyreduced CAD complications due to the early detection.

Methods

Nanoparticles. Three differently functionalized silica particles werepurchased by Kisker-Products (https://www.kisker-biotech.com/); threedifferently functionalized polystyrene particles were purchased byPolyscience, Inc. (http://www.polysciences.com/). All the particles hadthe same size (100 μm). Their morphology, average size, polydispersityindex (PDI) and zeta potential were characterized by TEM, DLS and zetapotential measurements.

Protein corona formation. The PCs were created by incubating 0.5 mg ofnanoparticles in deionized H₂O with the same volume of human plasma.Incubation was performed in 37° C. under agitation for 1h. Immediatelyafter incubation, centrifugation was executed at 14,000 rpm and 10° C.for 30 minutes to form a pellet. Next, the pellet was washed andsuspended in 200 μl of phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) at 4° C. Thecentrifugation measures were repeated three times under the sameprevious conditions. The pellet of the PC-coated nanoparticles wasresuspended in 8M Urea, 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate to later run SDS-PAGEgels and LC/MSMS analysis or in deionized H₂O to later analyze the sizeand ζ-potential.

Nanoparticles characterization. Size and ζ-potential of bare and proteincorona-coated nanoparticles have been characterized by diluting 10 μl ofeach sample in 1 ml total of distilled water. Measurements have beenperformed using a Zetasizer Nano ZS90 (Malvern, UK). Size and surfacecharge values are given as mean±S.D. of three independent measurements.

Protein concentration assay. The amount of proteins within the coronawas determined by Bradford assay (Bio-rad) using bovine serum albumin ata known concentration as the standard to build a 5-point standard curve(R²=0.99). Protein concentrations are recorded as an average of threeexperiments±S.D.

1D-SDS PAGE gels. Proteins in the corona were dissolved in in 8M Urea,50 mM ammonium bicarbonate. An equal amount of Laemmli buffer 2× wasadded to the pellet and heated for 5 min at 90° C. before being loadedand resolved onto a 4-20% Mini-PROTEAN® TGX™ Precast Gels (Bio-RadLaboratories, Hercules, Calif.) for 1h at 120V. Proteins were stainedwith Coomassie Brilliant Blue (Fisher Scientific, Fair Lawn, N.J., USA)overnight followed by extensive washing in ultra-pure water.

Mass spectrometry/Statistics/PLS-DA. Mass spectrometry, statisticalanalysis and PLS-DA were performed as described in Example 1.

Example 6. A Multi-Nanoparticle Protein Corona Test for Detection ofAlzheimer's Disease at Early Stage

The pathology of Alzheimer's disease begins decades before the detectionof clinical symptoms. The need for accurate and noninvasive earlydiagnosis for Alzheimer's disease is rapidly growing. To address theissue, a state-of-the-art sensor array nanosystem was developed, whichsuccessfully detects minuscule changes in plasma protein patterns anduses clustering techniques to determine the presence of Alzheimer'sdisease. The developed technology can also be applied in the future todiagnose other diseases since the sensor array creates uniquefingerprints for each plasma proteome change due to diseases and issensitive enough to capture such changes unlike current technologies.

As discussed in the previous Examples, PCs' composition changes based onthe plasma proteome that can be altered as a consequence of disease,which results in “personalized protein coronas” (PPCs). The PPCs,however, cannot provide a robust and precise strategy for earlydetection of diseases mainly due to the huge overlapping of the similarproteins in the protein corona composition. In this study, using thePPCs formed around a multi-NP platform containing six nanoparticles, weprovided a fingerprint-patterns for robust and precise detection of ADwith unprecedented prediction accuracy and specificity. The developedsensor array test successfully distinguished between patients with andwithout AD, as well as patients who developed AD several yearsafterwards (using cohort plasmas). This Examples provides a feasible,noninvasive alternative to current AD detection, allowing the ability toprovide unparalleled early detection and treatment.

Results and Discussion

The sensor array test consists of incubating plasma samples with 6different nanoparticles. The latter are 100 μm polystyrene and silicananoparticles, each with tunable surface chemistries (plain, -amino and-carboxyl conjugated here after referred to as P, P—NH2, P—COOH, S,S—NH2, S—COOH) and narrow size distribution as described in Example 5for CAD analysis. As initial proof-of-concept, to search for differencesbetween AD and control plasmas, the size, surface charge and morphologyof the nanoparticles before and after PC formation have been analyzed.Nanoparticle tracking analysis (Nanosight) has been applied tocharacterize the size of nanoparticles. During such analysis, a laserbeam illuminates the nanoparticles, from which the scattered light isvisualized through an optical microscope. Meanwhile, a video is recordedby a camera aligned to the beam showing the movement of thenanoparticles (30-60 frame/sec). Before incubation in plasma, allnanoparticles were homogeneous in size (FIG. 58, polystyrenenanoparticles 90-100 μm; silica nanoparticles 80-100 μm) with a negativesurface charge consistent with those provided by the manufacturer (Table8). After 1h incubation at 37° C. under agitation in plasma, PC-coatednanoparticles have been recovered by centrifugation followed byextensive washings to remove unbound and loosely attached proteins. Inall cases, we revealed an increase in the size of PC-coatednanoparticles and a wider size distribution, which indicates a lesshomogeneous population (FIG. 54, scatter plot). The average increase insize was 30 μm, thus indicating a 15-nm thickness of the PC layer, whichis consistent with data reported in literature¹ and with what wasobserved using plasma from healthy volunteers (data not shown). Thepresence of plasma proteins on the nanoparticles' surface induced achange in their charge, which became less negative reaching the valuestypical of the plasma proteins (−20 mV to −0 mV to Table 8).

TABLE 8 zeta potentials of nanoparticles bare or after contacted withplasma Zeta Potentials Bare Healthy (mV) nanoparticles plasma AD plasmaP −42.27 ± 0.54 −20.36 ± 1.54 −26.56 ± 2.14 P—NH2 −27.57 ± 1.63 −29.81 ±1.55 −30.62 ± 0.74 P—COOH −49.38 ± 1.1  −34.87 ± 0.78 −27.02 ± 0.71 S−53.72 ± 1.05 −23.22 ± 1.55 −21.23 ± 0.54 S—NH2 −46.44 ± 0.86 −24.26 ±0.95 −21.21 ± 0.38 S—COOH −56.77 ± 0.14 −28.37 ± 0.87 −25.69 ± 1.31

Slight differences in the surface charge of the same nanoparticleincubated with AD plasma and healthy plasma were observed (Table 8).However, those differences were not substantial and thus not useful inthe discrimination between different plasma's conditions. Transmissionelectron microscopy (TEM) was also used to evaluate the morphology ofnanoparticles, which remained unchanged after PC formation. Indeed, bothbefore and after incubation with plasma, all nanoparticles had a roundhomogeneous shape (FIG. 55). The presence of a thin layer of proteins,associated to an increase in the size of PC-coated nanoparticles,confirming the results obtained by Nanosight, was observed (FIG. 55).

PCs associated with the particles were resolved by gel electrophoresis(SDS-PAGE) and later visualized by staining with Coomassie BrilliantBlue (FIG. 56). In general, by visually evaluating the lanes, the 6nanoparticles had different PCs patterns, which was what expected anddesired for the best performances of our approach. Silica nanoparticlesseemed to adsorb less proteins on their surface than polystyrenenanoparticles. In most samples, the PC of plain polystyrene was moreenriched than others in proteins at molecular weight ≈60 kDa, which aremost likely attributable to Albumin. This was true both for AD patients'plasma and for control plasma (FIG. 56, arrows). The densitometricanalysis of bands associated to each PC confirmed that silicananoparticles generally adsorbed lower amount of proteins, but revealedalso that a higher number of proteins constitute their PCs: as forexample, more than one band is present at level of Albumin forpolystyrene nanoparticles' PC (FIG. 56, arrows). On the other hand,several differences were recorded in the PPCs profiles of AD patientsand healthy individual, particularly in the case of silica nanoparticles(FIG. 56, arrows). However, those differences were not statisticallysignificant and not sufficient to accurately discriminate between thetwo groups of patients under investigation. To deeper investigate thePCs and to know the exact identity and amount of proteins composing thedifferent PCs, all the samples have been analyzed by mass spectrometry.Spectral-counting label free analysis, widely employed for quantitativeprofiling of the PCs around nanoparticles²⁻⁴, was used to determine thepercentage contribution of each protein in the PCs. This calculation wasdone six times for each plasma patient (incubated separately with eachnanoparticle), thus allowing the formation of an AD-specific PC profilederived from the combination of the contribution of the PCs related tosix nanoparticles. Table 9 (See FIG. 68) describes the patientpopulation used.

CONCLUSION

This work represents a proof-of-concept study for the development of aMNPC blood test for the diagnosis of AD. The MNPC test showedunprecedented prediction accuracy and specificity. While individualbiomarkers blood-based tests are often associated with false positiveand thus require further analyses to confirm the diagnosis, our approachrecords the interactions of all the high-affinity proteins with the setof 6 nanoparticles, thus allowing the creation of a high-specificity PCfingerprint of a given disease. The nanoparticles act asnano-concentrator of plasma proteins on their surface (each nanoparticleconcentrates the plasma proteins with higher affinity towards itssurface): this helps in the revelation of proteins whose levels onlychange slightly in pathological conditions with respect to a healthystatus. These little changes may belong both to high abundance and lowabundance plasma proteins. In this study, we reported a relatively smallnumber of patients because each patient's plasma was analyzed 6 timesusing different nanoparticles, and so the results obtained for eachpatient are 6 times more specific than those obtained when a singleanalysis is performed.

Materials and Methods

Nanoparticles. Silica particles (plain, amino and carboxyl-conjugated)were purchased by Kisker-Products (https://www.kisker-biotech.com/).Polystyrene particles (plain, amino and carboxyl-conjugated) werepurchased by Polyscience, Inc. (http://www.polysciences.com/). Accordingto manufacturer's all the particles had the same size (90-100 μm). Theirmorphology, average size and zeta potential were characterized asdescribed later in this section.

Personalized Protein Corona Formation.

The PCs were created by incubating 0.5 mg of nanoparticles in deionizedH₂O with the same volume of human plasma. Incubation was performed in37° C. under agitation for 1h. Immediately after incubation, PC-coatednanoparticles have been recovered by centrifugation (14,000 rpm and 10°C. for 30 minutes) and extensive washing in cold phosphate-bufferedsaline (PBS) to remove unbound or weakly bound proteins. The pellet ofPC-coated nanoparticles was resuspended in 8M Urea, 50 mM ammoniumbicarbonate for SDS-PAGE gels and LC/MSMS analysis or in deionized H₂Ofor dynamic light scattering and ζ-potential analyses.

Physicochemical characterization of nanoparticles. Size was measured byNanoparticle tracking analysis (Nanosight, Malvern, UK). The softwarecalculates the size according to ζ-potential of bare and PC-coatednanoparticles has been determined using a Zetasizer Nano ZS90 (Malvern).nanoparticles were diluted in water before the analysis to aconcentration of 50 ng/ml. Size and surface charge values are given asmean±S.D. of three independent measurements. For transmission electronmicroscopy (TEM) analysis, samples and grids have been labeled with 1%uranyl acetate. Tecnai G2 Spirit BioTWIN Transmission ElectronMicroscope equipped with an AMT 2k CCD camera was used.

One-dimensional gel electrophoresis. Personalized protein coronas weredissolved in 8M Urea, 50 mM ammonium bicarbonate. An equal amount ofLaemmli buffer 2× was added to the pellet and heated for 5 min at 90° C.before being loaded and resolved onto a 4-20% Mini-PROTEAN® TGX™ PrecastGels (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, Calif.) for 1h at 120V. Proteinswere stained with Coomassie Brilliant Blue (Fisher Scientific, FairLawn, N.J., USA) overnight followed by extensive washing in ultra-purewater. Densitometric analysis of the band intensities have beenperformed by ImageJ (website: imagej.nih.gov/ij/).

Protein identification and quantification by mass spectrometry. Proteinswere reduced with 10 mM dithiothreitol (Sigma) for 1h at 56° C. and thenalkylated with 55 mM iodoacetamide (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, Mo., USA)for 1h at 25° C. in the dark. Proteins were then digested with modifiedtrypsin (Promega, Madison, Wis., USA) at an enzyme/substrate ratio of1:50 in 100 mM ammonium acetate, pH 8.9 at 25° C. overnight. Trypsinactivity was halted by addition of acetic acid (99.9%, Sigma-Aldrich) toa final concentration of 5%. Peptides were desalted using C18 SpinTips(Protea, Morgantown, W. Va.) then vacuum centrifuged and stored at −80°C. until the day of the analysis. Peptides were separated by reversephase HPLC (Thermo Fisher, Waltham, Mass. Easy nLC1000) using aprecolumn (made in house, 6 cm of 10 μm C18) and a self-pack 5 μm tipanalytical column (12 cm of 5 μm C18, New Objective) over a 140-minutegradient before nano-electrospray using a QExactive mass spectrometer(Thermo Fisher). Solvent A was 0.1% formic acid and solvent B was 80%MeCN/0.1% formic acid. The gradient conditions were 2-10% B (0-3 min),10-30% B (3-107 min), 30-40% B (107-121 min), 40-60% B (121-126 min),60-100% B (126-127 min), 100% B (127-137 min), 100-0% B (137-138 mM), 0%B (138-140 min), and the mass spectrometer was operated in adata-dependent mode. The parameters for the full scan MS were:resolution of 70,000 across 350-2000 m/z, AGC 3e6, and maximum IT 50 ms.The full MS scan was followed by MS/MS for the top 10 precursor ions ineach cycle with a NCE of 28 and dynamic exclusion of 30 s. Raw massspectral data files (.raw) were searched using Proteome Discoverer(Thermo Fisher) and Mascot version 2.4.1 (Matrix Science). Mascot searchparameters were: 10 ppm mass tolerance for precursor ions; 15 millimassunits (mmu) for fragment ion mass tolerance; 2 missed cleavages oftrypsin; fixed modification was carbamidomethylation of cysteine;variable modifications were methionine oxidation. Only peptides with aMascot score 25 were included in the data analysis. Spectral countingwas performed by summing the total number of peptides selected forfragmentation each protein.

Example 7. Size of Particles Effects Amount of Protein Bound

This Example demonstrates that the use of different size nanoparticlesmade of the same material provide a different biomolecule fingerprintfor each size. Silica nanoparticles of three different diameters (100 μm(0.1 μm), 3 μm and 4 μm) were incubated with the same plasma sample. Thebeads where analyzed by SDS-PAGE. As demonstrated in FIG. 58, the largerthe beads, the more proteins are comprised within the biomoleculesignature. Further, each bead size has a distinct biomolecule coronasignature and thus the combination of different sizes of nanoparticlealone allow for the development of a distinct biomolecule fingerprint.As shown, there are distinct differences in the pattern or proteinsbetween the three different sized beads.

A sensor array can be made using nanoparticles of different sizes whicheach will give a different biomolecule fingerprint.

Example 8. Sensor Array can Provide a Biomolecule Fingerprint ComprisingNucleic Acids

The sensor array and associated biomolecule corona signature along withproteins contains nucleic acids that make up the biomolecule corona.This Example demonstrates the composition of nucleic acids that bind tosilica nanoparticles with neutral surface nanoparticles. Nanoparticleswere incubated with plasma, and the associated nucleic acids wereanalyzed (FIG. 59). FIGS. 60 and 61 depict the analysis of nucleic acidin all samples and its content in plasma, (nucleic acid amount in plasmawas 33.8 pg/μl). The nucleic acid content of the biomolecule coronasassociated with the nanoparticle was analyzed. The proteins were eitherdissociated from nanoparticle using urea and the nucleic acidssubsequently analyzed (FIG. 62, nucleic acid amount 14.0) or theproteins were not dissociated from the corona and the nucleic acidsanalyzed (FIG. 63, 14.4 pg/μl). Alternatively, the nanoparticles can beincubated with nucleic acids that have been purified from the plasmawith a plasma kit and then incubated with the bare particles (FIG. 64,nucleic acid amount 13.2 pg/μl). The outcomes revealed the capacity ofnanoparticles in adsorption of nucleic acid in the biomolecular coronacomposition.

1. A method for assaying a biological sample, comprising: (a) contactingthe biological sample with a plurality of particles comprising differentparticle types to permit biomolecules of the biological sample to bindto the plurality of particles and form coronas around the plurality ofparticles, wherein the coronas corresponding to the different ofparticle types (i) differ based on particle type, and (ii) compriseoverlapping and distinct proteins; (b) separating at least a subset ofthe plurality of particles comprising the coronas from the biologicalsample by removing the subset of the plurality of particles therebyproducing a subset of proteins from the biological sample; (c) assayingthe subset of proteins of (b) with an instrument to detect, in thesubset, proteins in the biological sample at concentrations across abroad dynamic range, thereby assaying the biological sample.
 2. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the broad dynamic range comprises at least 6orders of magnitude.
 3. The method of claim 1, wherein the detecting ofproteins in the biological sample comprises detecting a protein presentin the sample at a concentration greater than 1 mg/ml and a proteinpresent in the sample at a concentration of less than 10 ng/ml.
 4. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the plurality of particles comprise ironoxide.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the assaying is performed usinggel-electrophoresis, liquid chromatography, mass spectrometry, nuclearmagnetic resonance spectroscopy, Fourier transform infraredspectroscopy, circular dichroism, Raman spectroscopy, or any combinationthereof.
 6. The method of claim 1, wherein the dynamic range of theproteins detected exceeds a detection limit of the assaying.
 7. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the dynamic range of the proteins detectedspans 6 or more orders of magnitude.
 8. The method of claim 1, whereinthe detected proteins comprise proteins present in concentrations of 100ng/ml or less in the biological sample.
 9. The method of claim 1,wherein the assaying comprises quantitative determination of the totalprotein adsorbed onto a particle from among the plurality of particles.10. The method of claim 1, wherein the assaying comprises quantitativedetermination of the relative amounts of different types of proteinsadsorbed onto a particle from among the plurality of particles.
 11. Themethod of claim 1, wherein step (b) further comprises removing looselyattached proteins from the particles prior to (c).
 12. The method ofclaim 1, wherein a particle from among the plurality of particles formsa corona that is at least 15 μm thick.
 13. The method of claim 1,wherein the contacting in (a) is performed for at least 1 minute. 14.The method of claim 1, wherein the assaying comprises detecting aprotein from the corona of a first particle from among the plurality ofparticles and a protein from the corona of a second particle from amongthe plurality of particles at the same time, wherein the first particleand the second particle are different particle types.
 15. The method ofclaim 14, wherein the detecting is performed on an array.
 16. The methodof claim 1, wherein the assaying comprises determining the quantity of aprotein in the corona of a particle from among the plurality ofparticles.
 17. The method of claim 1, wherein the assaying comprisesdetermining a ratio of two proteins in a corona of a particle from amongthe plurality of particles.
 18. The method of claim 1, wherein theassaying further comprises digesting the proteins.
 19. The method ofclaim 1, wherein the biological sample is divided into a plurality ofsample volumes, wherein, in (a), contacting comprises separatelyincubating a particle of the plurality of particles with the biologicalsample in a sample volume of the plurality of sample volumes, such thatone or more sample volume(s) of the plurality of sample volumes areincubated with a distinct particle type of the plurality of particles.20. The method of claim 1, wherein the contacting the biological samplesfurther comprises contacting the biological sample under multipleconditions that differ by one or more of: incubation time, incubationtemperature, or flow of the biological sample in contact with theplurality of particles.
 21. The method of claim 1, wherein the assayingcomprises determining the conformational state of a protein from thebiological sample.
 22. The method of claim 1, wherein the assayingcomprises measuring an association between two different proteins in thebiological sample.
 23. The method of claim 1, wherein the biologicalsample is selected from the group consisting of: blood, plasma, serum,lung lavage, menstrual blood, urine, processed tissue samples, amnioticfluid, cerebrospinal fluid, tears, saliva, sperm, chopped tissue,homogenized tissue, or any lysates or combinations thereof.
 24. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the coronas that form around the plurality ofparticles further comprise a species of biomolecules selected from thegroup consisting of polysaccharides, sugars, lipids, lipoproteins,metabolites, oligonucleotides, or any combination thereof.
 25. Themethod of claim 1, wherein at least one particle of the plurality ofparticles enriches for peptides other than albumin such that a ratio ofan amount of albumin to a protein X that binds to the at least oneparticle is less than a ratio of an amount of albumin to the protein Xin the biological sample.
 26. The method of claim 1, wherein thedifferent particle types differ from each other by one or morephysicochemical properties, wherein the one or more physicochemicalproperties are selected from the group consisting of: composition, size,surface charge, hydrophobicity, hydrophilicity, surface functionality,surface topography, surface curvature, shape, and any combinationthereof.
 27. The method of claim 26, wherein the one or morephysicochemical properties comprises surface functionality, wherein thesurface functionality is selected from the group consisting ofaminopropyl functionalization, amine functionalization, boronic acidfunctionalization, carboxylic acid functionalization, methylfunctionalization, N-succinimidyl ester functionalization, PEGfunctionalization, streptavidin functionalization, methyl etherfunctionalization, triethoxylpropylaminosilane functionalization, thiolfunctionalization, PCP functionalization, citrate functionalization,lipoic acid functionalization, BPEI functionalization, carboxylfunctionalization, hydroxyl functionalization, and any combinationthereof.
 28. The method of claim 1, wherein the assaying comprisesdetecting a signal from a particle from among the plurality ofparticles, wherein the signal is selected from the group consisting of afluorescence signal, a luminescence signal, a charge-based signal, and acolorimetric signal.
 29. The method of claim 1, wherein the assayingcomprises measuring the change in size of a particle of the plurality ofparticles following corona formation on said particle.
 30. The method ofclaim 1, further comprising centrifuging the biological sample and theplurality of particles prior to (b).